4.12 Noise and Vibration - Altamont Corridor Express · Similar to FRA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ... operation noise and vibration during the design process. The FTA

San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission

Environmental Impact Analysis Noise and Vibration

ACEforward Draft EIR 4.12-1

May 2017 ICF 00458.15

4.12 Noise and Vibration

4.12.1 Introduction

This section describes the regulatory setting and environmental setting for noise and vibration in

the vicinity of ACEforward’s near-term and longer-term improvements. It also describes the impacts

from noise and vibration on sensitive land use that would result from implementation of

ACEforward and mitigation measures that would reduce significant impacts, where feasible and

appropriate.

Cumulative impacts from noise and vibration, in combination with planned, approved, and

reasonably foreseeable projects, are discussed in Chapter 5, Other CEQA-Required Analysis.

4.12.1.1 Noise Fundamentals and Descriptors

Noise from transit systems is expressed in terms of a source-path-receiver framework. The source

generates noise levels that depend on the type of source (e.g., a commuter train) and its operating

characteristics (e.g., speed). The receiver is the noise-sensitive land use (e.g., residence, hospital, or

school) exposed to noise from the source. In between the source and the receiver is the path, where

the noise is reduced by distance, intervening buildings, and topography. Environmental noise

impacts are assessed at the receiver. Noise criteria are established for the various types of receivers

because not all receivers have the same noise sensitivity.

Noise is unwanted sound. Sound is measured in terms of sound pressure level and is usually

expressed in decibels (dB). The human ear is less sensitive to higher and lower frequencies than it is

to mid-range frequencies. All noise ordinances, and this noise analysis, use the A-weighted decibel

(dBA) system, which measures what humans hear in a more meaningful way because it reduces the

sound levels of higher and lower frequency sounds—similar to what humans hear. Figure 4.12-1

shows typical maximum A-weighted sound pressure levels (Lmax) for transit and non-transit

sources.

Analysts use three primary noise measurement descriptors to assess noise impacts from traffic and

transit projects. They are the equivalent sound level (Leq), the day-night sound level (Ldn), and the

sound exposure level (SEL).

Leq: The level of a constant sound for a specified period of time that has the same sound energy

as an actual fluctuating noise over the same period of time. The peak-hour Leq is used for all

traffic and commuter rail noise analyses at locations with daytime use, such as schools and

libraries.

Ldn: The Leq over a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to nighttime sound levels (between 10

p.m. and 7 a.m.) to account for the greater sensitivity and lower background sound levels during

this time. The Ldn is the primary noise-level descriptor for rail noise at residential land uses.

Figure 4.12-2 shows typical Ldn noise exposure levels.

SEL: The SEL is the primary descriptor of a single noise event (e.g., noise from a train passing a

specific location along the track). SEL is an intermediate value in the calculation of both Leq and




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Ldn. It represents a receiver's cumulative noise exposure from an event and the total A-

weighted sound during the event normalized to a 1-second interval.

In addition to the Leq, Ldn, and SEL, another descriptor is used to describe noise. The loudest 1

second of noise over a measurement period, or Lmax, is used in many local and state ordinances for

noise emitted from private land uses and for construction noise impact evaluations.

4.12.1.2 Vibration Fundamentals and Descriptors

Vibration from a transit system is also expressed in terms of a source-path-receiver framework. The

source is the train rolling on the tracks, which generates vibration energy transmitted through the

supporting structure under the tracks and into the ground. Once the vibration gets into the ground,

it propagates through the various soil and rock strata—the path—to the foundations of nearby

buildings—the receivers. Ground-borne vibrations are generally reduced with distance depending

on the local geological conditions. A receiver is a vibration-sensitive building (e.g., residence,

hospital, or school) where the vibrations may cause perceptible shaking of the floors, walls, and

ceilings and a rumbling sound inside rooms. Not all receivers have the same vibration sensitivity.

Consequently, vibration criteria are established for the various types of receivers. Ground-borne

noise occurs as a perceptible rumble and is caused by the noise radiated from the vibration of room

surfaces.

Vibration above certain levels can damage buildings, disrupt sensitive operations, and cause

annoyance to humans within buildings. The response of humans, buildings, and equipment to

vibration is most accurately described using velocity or acceleration. In this analysis, vibration

velocity (VdB) is the primary measure to evaluate the effects of vibration.

Figure 4.12-3 illustrates typical ground-borne vibration velocity levels for common sources and

thresholds for human and structural response to ground-borne vibration. As shown, the range of

interest is from approximately 50 to 100 VdB in terms of vibration velocity level (i.e., from

imperceptible background vibration to the threshold of damage). Although the threshold of human

perception to vibration is approximately 65 VdB, annoyance does not usually occur unless the

vibration exceeds 70 VdB.

4.12.2 Regulatory Setting

This section summarizes federal, state, regional, and local regulations related to noise and vibration

and applicable to ACEforward.

4.12.2.1 Federal

Noise Control Act of 1972

The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 United States Code § 4910) was the first comprehensive

statement of national noise policy. The Noise Control Act declared, “it is the policy of the U.S. to

promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.”

Although the Noise Control Act, as a funded program, was ultimately abandoned at the federal level,

it served as the catalyst for comprehensive noise studies and the generation of noise assessment and

mitigation policies, regulations, ordinances, standards, and guidance for many states, counties, and

municipal governments. For example, the noise elements of community general plan documents and




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

local noise ordinances considered in this analysis were largely created in response to the passage of

the Noise Control Act.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Railroad Noise Emission Standards

Interstate rail carriers must comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (40 Code of

Federal Regulation [C.F.R.] § 201) noise emission standards, which are expressed as maximum

measured noise levels and applicable to locomotives manufactured after 1979.

100 feet from geometric center of stationary locomotive, connected to a load cell and operating

at any throttle setting except idle—87 dBA (at idle setting, 70 dBA).

100 feet from geometric center of mobile locomotive—90 dBA.

100 feet from geometric center of mobile railcars, at speeds of up to 45 miles per hour (mph)—88

dBA—or speeds greater than 45 mph (93 dBA).

Federal Railroad Administration Guidelines and Noise Emission Compliance Regulation

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has developed a guidance manual for assessing noise

and vibration impacts from major rail projects. Although not at the level of a rule or a standard, FRA

guidance is intended to satisfy environmental review requirements and assist project sponsors in

addressing predicted construction and operation noise and vibration during the design process.

FRA also has a regulation governing compliance of noise emissions from interstate railroads. FRA’s

Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulation (49 C.F.R. § 210) prescribes compliance

requirements for enforcing railroad noise emission standards adopted by USEPA (40 C.F.R. § 201).

Federal Transit Administration Guidelines

Similar to FRA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed a guidance manual for

assessing noise and vibration impacts from major rail projects intended to satisfy environmental

review requirements and assist project sponsors in addressing predicted construction and

operation noise and vibration during the design process. The FTA guidance manual noise and

vibration impact criteria for rail projects and their associated fixed facilities, such as storage and

maintenance yards, passenger stations and terminals, parking facilities, and substations are

described in Section 4.12.4.2, Thresholds of Significance, and are the primary noise criteria used for

the ACEforward. FTA guidance is accepted by FRA.

4.12.2.2 State

California Noise Control Act

At the state level, the California Noise Control Act, enacted in 1973 (Health and Safety Code § 46010

et seq.), requires the Office of Noise Control in the Department of Health Services to provide

assistance to local communities developing local noise control programs. The Office of Noise Control

also works with the Office of Planning and Research to provide guidance for preparing required

noise elements in city and county general plans, pursuant to Government Code Section 65302(f). In

preparing the noise element, a city or county must identify local noise sources and analyze and

quantify, to the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels for various sources, including




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

highways and freeways; passenger and freight railroad operations; ground rapid transit systems;

commercial, general, and military aviation and airport operations; and other ground stationary

noise sources. These noise sources also would include commuter rail alignments. The California

Noise Control Act stipulates the mapping of noise-level contours for these sources, using community

noise metrics appropriate for environmental impact assessment as defined in Section 4.12.4.2. Cities

and counties use these as guides to making land use decisions to minimize the community residents’

exposure to excessive noise.

4.12.2.3 Regional and Local

The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), a state joint powers agency, proposes

improvements located within and outside of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way (ROW).

The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) affords railroads engaged in

interstate commerce1 considerable flexibility in making necessary improvements and modifications

to rail infrastructure, subject to the requirements of the Surface Transportation Board. ICCTA

broadly preempts state and local regulation of railroads and this preemption extends to the

construction and operation of rail lines. As such, activities within the UPRR ROW are clearly exempt

from local building and zoning codes and other land use ordinances. ACEforward improvements

outside of the UPRR ROW, however, would be subject to regional and local plans and regulations.

Though ICCTA does broadly preempt state and local regulation of railroads, SJRRC intends to obtain

local agency permits for construction of facilities that fall outside of the UPRR ROW even though

SJRRC has not determined that such permits are legally necessary and such permits may not be

required.

Appendix H, Regional Plans and Local General Plans, provides a list of applicable goals, policies, and

objectives from regional and local plans of the jurisdictions in which ACEforward improvements are

proposed. Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss “any inconsistencies

between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans.”

These plans were considered during the preparation of this analysis and were reviewed to assess

whether ACEforward would be consistent2 with the plans of relevant jurisdictions. Noise and

vibration impacts and mitigation requirements for ACEforward are based on FRA and FTA

standards; therefore, are some inconsistencies between ACEforward and applicable goals, policies,

and objectives related to noise and vibration identified in Appendix H.

Table 4.12-1 provides a summary of the county and city general plans that have been identified,

reviewed, and considered for the preparation of this analysis. For a list of applicable noise and

vibration goals, policies, and objectives from these county and city general plans, please see

Appendix H.

1 Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) operates within a right-of-way (ROW) and on tracks owned by the UPRR, which

operates interstate freight rail service in the same ROW and on the same tracks. 2 An inconsistency with regional or local plans is not necessarily considered a significant impact under CEQA,

unless it is related to a physical impact on the environment that is significant in its own right.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-1. Local General Plans Regarding Noise and Vibration

Policy Title Summary

Santa Clara County

Santa Clara County General Plan (1994)

Sets noise limits based on land use and requires mitigation for noise impacts. Policy C-HS 24: Promotes noise and land use compatibility to provide for public health. Policy C-HS 25: Noise impacts should be mitigated.

Envision San Jose 2040 (2011)

Sets acceptable exterior noise levels and minimizes increased noise levels. Policy EC-1.1: Sets the City’s exterior noise level objective at 60 dBA or less for residential and institutional land use. Policy EC-1.2: Requires new developments to have a minimal noise impact on sensitive land use areas.

Policy EC-2: Sets vibration limits to FTA guidelines.

City of Santa Clara 2010–2035 General Plan (2010)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California.

Alameda County

Alameda County General Plan (1994)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California. Requires projects to prevent and minimize noise impacts.

City of Fremont General Plan 2030 (2011)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California. Encourages the establishment of Railroad Quiet Zones. Requires vibration to follow FTA guidelines. Policies: 10-8.2: Limit the allowed increase in noise level due to new projects. 10-8.3: Require evaluation of mitigation if Ldn increases by 5 dBA but remains below 60 dBA, increases by 3 dBA and exceeds 60 dBA, or if the project has the potential to generate significant adverse community response. 10-8.6: Protects noise-sensitive land uses other than residential. 10-8.10: Sets standards for vibration as provided by FTA.

Newark California General Plan (2013)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California. Follows vibration standards set by FTA guidelines. Policies: EH-6.3: Use mitigation to reduce noise-impacts on new public transit projects. EH-6.4: Coordinate with transportation service providers during planning and design of proposed rail projects to minimize and mitigate noise.

2002 General Plan Policy Document (Union City: 2002)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California. Policy HS-C.1: Identifies and sets noise limits for noise-sensitive land uses, and requires mitigation to reduce interior noise level to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL. Policy HS-C.1.3: The City requires a detailed noise impact analysis for current and futures noise sources. Policy HS-C.1.6: Requires new projects that are impacted by noise to use barriers for mitigation, inclusion of noise mitigation measures and ensure the enforcement of city, state and federal noise levels.

Hayward General Plan

(2014)

Follows the noise standards set by the State of California. Policies HAZ-8.1: Minimize exposure to excessive noise and ground vibration by locating noise-sensitive land uses. Policies HAZ 8-2: Conduct a noise study and perform noise mitigation measures based on land use compatibility. Policies HAZ 8-5: The maximum acceptable interior noise levels shall be an Ldn of 45 dBA with closed windows. Maximum instantaneous level of 50 dBA at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), and the maximum instantaneous noise level in all interior rooms shall not exceed 55 dBA during the day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) with windows closed. The maximum exterior noise level shall be an Ldn of 60 dBA for the primary open space area in a single family, Ldn of 65 dBA for multifamily residence, and Ldn 70 dBA for urban residential infill and mix-use projects.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15


San Leandro General Plan

(2016)

Follows the Noise Element from the San Leandro General Plan 2002. Policies: 35.02: Interior noise levels in new residential conditions not to exceed 45 dBA Ldn, 35.03: Exterior noise level of no more than 60 dBA Ldn in residential areas. 35.07: Responding effectively to complaints and enforce city codes and ordinances. 36.02: Develop and implement noise reduction measures when changes in San Leandro streets. 36.05: Work with parties an agencies to reduce or mitigate horn noise if there are exceedances. 36.06: Develop measures to reduce and mitigate freeway noise. 37.01: Pursue mitigation of airport noise with operational changes, aircraft changes and others to reduce the properties affected by airport activities.

City of Oakland General Plan, Noise Element

(2005)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California. The standards establish a threshold of 45 dBA CNEL for noise from exterior sources in any occupied room with doors and windows closed. Follows the Noise Element of Oakland General Plan. Policy 1: Ensure the compatibility of existing land uses but also with its surrounding noise environment. Policy 2: Protect the noise environment by controlling mobile and stationary sources. Policy 3: Reduce the community’s exposure by lowering noise levels on the residents.

Follows Oakland’s Municipal Code, 17.120.050 (Performance Standards—Noise); and 8.18.010 (Excessive and annoying noises prohibited) and 8.18.020 (Persistent noises a nuisance).

Pleasanton General Plan 2005–2025 (2009)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California. Policy 1: Requires new projects to meet acceptable exterior noise levels. Policy 4.6: Require developers to mitigate noise impacts. Policy 8.1: Coordinate with transportation agencies to reduce noise generated outside of the City’s jurisdiction.

City of Livermore General Plan 2003–2025 (2004)


San Joaquin County

San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 (1992)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California. Policy 1(a): Sets the maximum noise exposure from transit noise at 65 dB for residential and noise-sensitive land use.

City of Tracy General Plan (2011)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California except for the following policies. Ob N-1.1 P9: If primary noise source is from train pass-bys, outdoor noise levels shall be limited to 70 dB Ldn. Ob N-1.2 P2: Mitigation required if Ldn increases by 3 dB and exceeds “normal acceptable” levels, Ldn increases by 5 dB and remains at “normal acceptable” levels, or exceeds noise limits. Ob N-1.3 P1: Evaluate projects for noise impacts. Ob N-1.3 P2: Mitigate significant impacts. Ob N-1.3 P6: Reduce impacts from ground-borne vibration.

City of Lathrop General Plan (1991)

Follows the Noise Element from the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010. Policies: 1: Noise impact threshold set at 60 dB CNEL at the exterior of buildings. 2a: Sets noise limit for new projects at 60 dB CNEL in outdoor activity areas.

City of Manteca General Plan 2023 (2003)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California. Policies: N-P-1: Defines noise impact at levels above 60 dB Ldn for noise-sensitive land use, 65 dB for other land use, and 70 dB for playgrounds for mobile noise sources. N-P-5: Requires noise mitigation for construction.

City of Ripon General Plan 2040 (2006)





May 2017 ICF 00458.15


Stanislaus County

Stanislaus County General Plan (2015)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California. Policy Two: Requires mitigation in unincorporated areas when noise exceeds standards. 1(a): For transportation noise sources, limits are set at 60 dB Ldn for outdoor activity areas of single family homes and 65 dB for outdoor activity areas of multifamily dwellings. 4: Requires a monitoring program to implement noise mitigation. Policy Three: Protects noise-sensitive land uses. 1: Requires mitigation when Ldn is increased by 3 dB and exceeds “normally acceptable” levels or increased by 5 dB and remains with in “normally acceptable” levels.

City of Modesto Final Urban Area General Plan (2008)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California. Policies: a: Requires construction activities to comply with the noise ordinance. b: Requires new projects to have additional studies and/or mitigation if noise exposure at single family residential uses exceeds 65 dBA or if noise levels exceed standards set.

Turlock General Plan (2012) Follows noise standards set by the State of California. Policies: 9.4b: Requires preventative measures for the degradation of the noise environment. 9.4-c: Protects residential and noise-sensitive land use areas by minimizing excessive noise exposure. 9.4-e: Required noise-attenuating features for projects with noise exposures exceeding “normally acceptable” levels.

Merced County

2030 Merced County General Plan (2013)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California. Policies: HS-7.2: Consider noise mitigation measures to reduce traffic and/or rail noise levels to comply with standards if pre-project noise levels already exceed the standards and the increase is significant. HS-7.11: Support improvements to at-grade crossings in urban areas to eliminate the need for train horn sounding near communities. HS-7.12: Requires new project to include appropriate noise mitigation measures to comply with standards.

City of Atwater General Plan (2000)

Follows noise standards set by the State of California. Policy NO-2.4: Mitigate noise created by new transportation noise sources consistent with the standards at existing noise-sensitive land uses.

Merced Vision 2030 General Plan (2012)

Goal is the protection of City residents from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise. Policy N-1.6: Mitigate all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval for sensitive land uses.

dBA = A-weighted decibel

FTA = Federal Transit Administration

dB = decibels

Ldn = day-night sound level

CNEL = community noise equivalent level

4.12.3 Environmental Setting

This section describes the environmental setting related to noise and vibration by geographic

segment for ACEforward improvements. For the purposes of this analysis, the study area for noise is

defined as the area approximately 500 feet from the track centerline. The study area for vibration is

defined as the area approximately 200 feet from the track centerline. Figures 4.12-4 and 4.12-5

depict the study area for noise and vibration.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Information for the noise and vibration setting was obtained from the following sources.

Available reports and data (federal and state statues, regional agency policies, and ordinances).

Field reconnaissance throughout the study area to assess potential locations for noise

measurements.

Noise measurements at locations throughout the study area to document existing conditions at

sensitive receivers.

Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) data on existing locomotive fleet and operations.

Available data on UPRR train volumes.

General plan noise elements for jurisdictions along the rail alignment.

Based on the above information, existing noise sources in the study area include commuter and

freight rail operations, roadway traffic, and general community activity. The only significant sources

of vibration in the study area are commuter and freight rail operations.

Because the thresholds for noise impact in FTA noise criteria (defined in Section 4.12.4.2) are based

on the existing noise levels, measuring the existing noise and characterizing noise levels at sensitive

locations in the study area is an important step in the impact assessment. The noise measurements

included both long-term (24-hour) and short-term (1-hour) monitoring of the A-weighted sound

level at noise-sensitive locations in the study area.

The noise measurements were performed with NTi Audio model XL2 noise monitors that conform to

American National Standard Institute standards for Type 1 (precision) sound level meters.

Calibrations, traceable to the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, were conducted

before and after each measurement. The noise monitors were set to continuously monitor and

record multiple noise level metrics, as well as to obtain audio recordings during the measurement

periods.

Table 4.12-2 summarizes results of the existing noise level measurements, and Figures 4.12-6 and

4.12-7 show the locations of the 34 long-term noise sites (LT) and 13 short-term noise sites (ST).

The long-term noise measurements were used to characterize the existing noise at residential

locations, and the short-term sites were used to characterize the existing noise at sensitive non-

residential locations. Existing noise level measurements are discussed in further detail, by segment,

in the subsections following Table 4.12-2.

The sensitive land use for vibration is essentially the same as for noise, except that park land is not

considered vibration sensitive. Because a general vibration assessment (rather than a detailed

vibration analysis) was performed, vibration measurements were not conducted for this analysis.

Table 4.12-2. Existing Noise Level Measurements in the Study Area

Site No. City Measurement Location Measurement Start Meas. Dur. (hrs.)

Noise Level (dBA)a

Leq Ldn

Centerville/Niles/Sunol

LT-1 Fremont 4709 Deadwood Drive 2015-12-16 15:00:00 24 59 66

LT-2 Fremont 1341 Gilbert Avenue 2015-12-15 13:00:00 24 55 69

LT-3 Sunol 12245A Foothill Road 2015-12-17 14:00:00 24 57 59




May 2017 ICF 00458.15


Noise Level (dBA)a

Leq Ldn

ST-1 Sunol Pleasanton Sunol Road 2015-12-17 14:56:00 1 66 64

Niles Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Elmhurst Junction

LT-1N Oakland 11050 Robledo Drive 2016-08-22 9:00:00 24 56 63

LT-2N San Leandro 1016 Minerva Street 2016-08-22 11:00:00 24 52 62

LT-3N San Leandro 547 Dahlia Court 2016-08-22 10:00:00 24 56 57

LT-4N San Leandro 15631 Dermody Avenue 2016-08-22 11:00:00 24 57 65

LT-5N Hayward 18039 Rainer Avenue 2016-08-22 12:00:00 24 52 60

LT-6N Hayward 20364 Times Avenue 2016-08-23 12:09:53 24 54 61

LT-7N Hayward 24080 Amador Village Circle

2016-08-23 10:07:39 24 54 58

LT-8N Hayward 25029 Silverthorne Place 2016-08-23 13:00:00 24 62 58

LT-9N Hayward 26461 Mocine Avenue 2016-08-23 15:00:00 24 66 70

LT-10N Hayward 28453 Rochelle Avenue 2016-08-24 10:00:00 24 56 65

LT-11N Union City 121 Edna Court 2016-08-24 12:00:00 24 53 58

LT-12N Union City 33429 Rail Road Avenue 2016-08-25 14:00:37 24 65 77

LT-13N Union City 1052 Sapphire Terrace 2016-08-24 15:00:00 24 58 62

LT-14N Fremont 35784 Linda Drive 2016-08-24 12:00:00 24 54 61

LT-15N Fremont 37391 Vallejo Way 2016-08-25 10:00:00 24 54 56

LT-16N Fremont 37947 Essanay Place 2016-08-25 15:00:00 24 52 54

ST-1N San Lorenzo San Lorenzo High School 2016-08-24 8:10:00 1 67 65

Oakland Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Industrial Parkway

LT-1NS Union City 34882 Herringbone Way 2017-03-06 11:00:00 24 59 63

LT-2NS Union City 35981 Gold Street 2017-03-06 11:00:00 24 55 59

LT-3NS Niles 36707 Montecito Drive 2017-03-06 12:00:00 24 53 57

LT-4NS Union City 33450 13th Street 2017-03-07 12:00:00 24 61 65

ST-1NS Union City 33972 13th Street 2017-03-08 10:30:00 1 86 84

Tri-Valley

LT-4 Pleasanton 4180 Jensen Street 2015-12-15 16:00:33 24 64 67

LT-5 Livermore 963 El Rancho Drive 2015-12-15 16:00:00 24 58 57

LT-6 Livermore 14 Jami Street 2015-12-16 16:08:39 24 57 61

Altamont

ST-2 Altamont Altamont Pass Road 2015-12-18 10:03:51 1 74 72

Tracy to Lathrop

LT-7 Tracy 903 South Corral Hollow Road

2015-12-17 10:00:00 24 56 59

LT-8 Tracy 606 East Sixth Street 2015-12-14 11:00:00 24 62 64

LT-9 Banta 22484 7th Street 2015-12-14 13:00:00 24 62 67

LT-10 River Islands

River Islands Welcome Center

2015-12-14 14:00:00 24 55 60

LT-11 Lathrop 15901 7th Street 2015-12-14 15:00:00 24 77 56




May 2017 ICF 00458.15


Noise Level (dBA)a

Leq Ldn

ST-3 Livermore 17775 Midway Road 2015-12-17 8:28:28 1 46 44

ST-4 Tracy Lovely Road and Interstate 205

2015-12-16 8:29:30 1 62 60

Lathrop to Stockton

LT-12 Lathrop 13521 Quartz Way 2015-12-16 12:00:00 24 56 52

LT-13 Stockton 1817 S Aurora Street 2015-12-14 17:00:00 24 57 68

ST-5 French Camp

Adas Yeshuran Cemetery 2015-12-17 10:36:30 1 70 68

ST-6 Stockton Stockton Station 2015-12-16 10:07:00 1 62 60

Manteca to Modesto

LT-14 Manteca 1548 Malvick Court 2016-04-25 14:00:00 24 64 71

LT-15 Manteca 144 Goodale Court 2016-04-26 15:00:00 24 69 77

LT-16 Ripon 238 North Locust Avenue 2016-04-26 10:00:00 24 66 71

LT-17 Modesto 2508 Strivens Avenue 2016-04-25 10:00:00 24 65 70

LT-18 Modesto 1814 Lauralee Court 2016-04-25 9:00:00 24 57 63

ST-7 Manteca East Atherton Drive 2016-04-25 14:35:59 1 62 60

ST-8 Ripon 99 North Frontage Road 2016-04-26 14:59:00 1 72 70

ST-9 Ripon Garrison Way 2016-04-25 16:26:30 1 61 59

ST-10 Salida 5213 Whitestone Drive 2016-04-25 11:37:10 1 62 60

ST-11 Modesto Brink Avenue 2016-04-26 11:06:00 1 71 69

ST-12 Modesto 8th Street 2016-04-26 7:59:23 1 75 73

a Ldn is used for Category 2 (residential) land use and Leq is used for Category 3 (institutional) land use.

LT-# = longer-term noise sites

ST-# = short-term noise sites

No. = number

hrs. = hours

dBA = A-weighted decibels

Leq = equivalent sound level


Meas. Dur. = measurement duration

4.12.3.1 San Jose to Fremont

The land uses in the San Jose to Fremont segment are a mixture of industrial, commercial, and

residential areas. Noise-sensitive receptors are concentrated in the segment from the Bayshore

Freeway through Alviso, including mostly single-family and multifamily homes.

Because of the high volume of existing train traffic, noise measurements were not conducted and the

existing noise levels for this segment were modeled based on the schedules for the existing rail

service. The modeled noise levels ranged from 55 to 83 dBA Ldn, depending on the proximity of the

receptor to the existing tracks.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

4.12.3.2 Centerville to Union City

The noise-sensitive receptors in this segment are Niles Discovery Church, Buddhanusorn Thai

Temple, Gurdwara Sahib Fremont, and a mixture of single- and multifamily homes.

Centerville to Union City is a longer-term improvement segment only; therefore, quantitative noise

measurements at specific sites were not conducted.

4.12.3.3 Centerville/Niles/Sunol

In the Centerville/Niles/Sunol segment, the land uses are a mixture of densely populated residential

areas in Centerville, sparsely populated areas in Niles canyon, and residential areas in Sunol. In the

Centerville/Fremont area, noise-sensitive receptors include the Chinese Independent Baptist

Church, the Bay Area Baptist Church, the Shaolin Temple USA, the Shinn Park and Arboretum, and a

mixture of single-family and multifamily homes. In Niles Canyon, noise-sensitive receptors include

the Golden Gate Primitive Baptist Church and scattered single-family homes. In Sunol, the noise-

sensitive receptors include Sunol Glen Elementary School, Happy Valley Church, and single-family

homes.

The noise measurement sites used to describe this area are LT-1, LT-2, LT-3, and ST-1 (Figure 4.12-

6).

Site LT-1, 4709 Deadwood Drive (Fremont): The Ldn measured at this location was 66 dBA.

The dominant noise sources were traffic on local streets and freight rail traffic. Noise levels were

measured for 24 hours in the backyard of the residence. This measurement site is

representative of all noise-sensitive land uses from Central Avenue to Paseo Padre Parkway.

Site LT-2, 1341 Gilbert Avenue (Fremont): The Ldn measured at this location was 69 dBA.

The dominant noise source was freight rail traffic. Noise levels were measured for 24 hours in

the backyard of the residence. This measurement site is representative of all noise-sensitive

land uses from Paseo Padre Parkway to Stenhammer Drive.

Site LT-3, 12245A Foothill Road (Sunol): The Ldn measured at this location was 59 dBA. The

dominant noise source was traffic on Foothill Road and Niles Canyon Road. Noise levels were

measured for 24 hours in the front yard of the residence. This measurement site is

representative of all noise-sensitive land uses through Niles Canyon and in Sunol.

Site ST-1, Pleasanton Sunol Road (Sunol): The Leq measured at this location was 66 dBA. The

dominant noise sources were traffic on Interstate (I-) 680 and Pleasanton Sunol Road. Noise

levels were measured for 1 hour on the shoulder of Pleasanton Sunol Road. This measurement

site is representative of all noise sensitive land uses from Carver Lane to Castlewood Drive.

4.12.3.4 Niles Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Elmhurst Junction

The land uses along the Niles Subdivision segment from north of Niles Junction to Elmhurst Junction

in Oakland consists of a mixture of industrial, commercial, and significant residential areas with

large numbers of residences. Noise-sensitive receptors are concentrated in the segment in various

residential areas in Fremont, Union City, Hayward, San Leandro, and Oakland.

Noise measurements were conducted at the existing locations described below to characterize

existing noise levels for this segment (Figure 4.12-7). The measured noise levels ranged from 54 to

77 dBA Ldn, depending on the proximity of the receptor to the existing tracks.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Site LT-1N, 11050 Robledo Drive (Oakland): The Ldn measured at this location was 63 dBA.

The dominant noise sources were Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) trains and local traffic. Noise

levels were measured for 24 hours in the backyard of the residence.

Site LT-2N, 1016 Minerva Street (San Leandro): The Ldn measured at this location was 62

dBA. The dominant noise sources were rail traffic and air traffic. Noise levels were measured for

24 hours in the backyard of the residence.

Site LT-3N, 547 Dahlia Court (San Leandro): The Ldn measured at this location was 57 dBA.

The dominant noise sources were local traffic and air traffic. Noise levels were measured for 24

hours in the backyard of the residence.

Site LT-4N, 15631 Dermody Avenue (San Leandro): The Ldn measured at this location was

65 dBA. The dominant noise sources were local traffic and rail traffic. Noise levels were

measured for 24 hours in the backyard of the residence.

Site LT-5N, 18039 Rainer Avenue (Hayward): The Ldn measured at this location was 60 dBA.

The dominant noise sources were local traffic and air traffic. Noise levels were measured for 24


Site LT-6N, 20364 Times Avenue (Hayward): The Ldn measured at this location was 61 dBA.

The dominant noise sources are rail traffic and typical neighborhood noises. Noise levels were


Site LT-7N, 24080 Amador Village Circle (Hayward): The Ldn measured at this location was

58 dBA. The dominant noise sources are construction and typical neighborhood noises. Noise

levels were measured for 24 hours across the tracks from the property.

Site LT-8N, 25029 Silverthorne Place (Hayward): The Ldn measured at this location was 58

dBA. The dominant noise source is local traffic. Noise levels were measured for 24 hours in the

backyard of the property.

Site LT-9N, 26461 Mocine Avenue (Hayward): The Ldn measured at this location was 70 dBA.

The dominant noise sources are local traffic and typical neighborhood noises. Noise levels were

measured for 24 hours in the backyard of the property.

Site LT-10N, 28453 Rochelle Avenue (Hayward): The Ldn measured at this location was 65

dBA. The dominant noise sources were rail traffic and typical neighborhood noises. Noise levels

were measured for 24 hours in the backyard of the property.

Site LT-11N, 121 Edna Court (Union City): The Ldn measured at this location was 58 dBA. The

dominant noise sources were local traffic and rail traffic. Noise levels were measured for 24

hours in the backyard of the property.

Site LT-12N, 33429 Rail Road Avenue (Union City): The Ldn measured at this location was 77

dBA. The dominant noise sources were local traffic and rail traffic. Noise levels were measured

for 24 hours in the backyard of the property.

Site LT-13N, 1052 Sapphire Terrace (Union City): The Ldn measured at this location was 62

dBA. The dominant noise sources were local traffic and rail traffic. Noise levels were measured

for 24 hours on the porch of the townhouse next to Green Street.

Site LT-14N, 35784 Linda Drive (Fremont): The Ldn measured at this location was 61 dBA.

The dominant noise sources were construction and rail traffic. Noise levels were measured for

24 hours in the backyard of the residence.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Site LT-15N, 37391 Vallejo Way (Fremont): The Ldn measured at this location was 56 dBA.

The dominant noise sources were local traffic and rail traffic. Noise levels were measured for 24


Site LT-16N, 37947 Essanay Place (Fremont): The Ldn measured at this location was 54 dBA.

The dominant noise sources were local traffic and rail traffic. Noise levels were measured for 24


Site ST-1N, San Lorenzo High School (San Lorenzo): The Leq measured at this location was

67 dBA. The dominant noise sources were construction noises and local traffic. Noise levels

were measured for 1 hour in the parking lot next to the gym of the high school.

4.12.3.5 Oakland Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Industrial Parkway

The land uses along the Oakland Subdivision segment from Niles Junction to Industrial Parkway in

Hayward consists of a mixture of recreational, residential, industrial, and commercial areas. Noise-

sensitive receptors are concentrated in the segment in various residential areas in Fremont and

Union City.

Noise measurements were conducted at the existing locations described below to characterize

existing noise levels for this segment (Figure 4.12-7). The measured noise levels ranged from 57 to

86 dBA Ldn, depending on the proximity of the receptor to the existing tracks.

Site LT-1NS, 34882 Herringbone Way (Union City): The Ldn measured at this location was

63 dBA. The dominant noise sources were BART trains and neighborhood noises. Noise levels

were measured for 24 hours in the backyard of the residence.

Site LT-2NS, 35987 Gold Street (Union City): The Ldn measured at this location was 59 dBA.

The dominant noise sources were BART trains and neighborhood noises. Noise levels were


Site LT-3NS, 36707 Montecito Drive (Niles): The Ldn measured at this location was 57 dBA.



Site LT-4NS, 33450 13th Street (Union City): The Ldn measured at this location was 65 dBA.



Site ST-1NS, 33972 13th Street (Union City): The Leq measured at this location was 86 dBA.

The dominant noise source was the BART train on the elevated track. Noise levels were

measured for 1 hour on the side of the road on the east side of the park.

4.12.3.6 Tri-Valley

The Tri-Valley segment includes Pleasanton and Livermore. Noise-sensitive receptors in Pleasanton

include Pleasanton Middle School, Amador Valley High School, and single- and multifamily homes.

The noise-sensitive receptors in Livermore are the Church of Christ, Iglesia Ni Cristo-Livermore, and

single- and multifamily homes.

The noise measurement site used to characterize the Pleasanton area is LT-4. The noise

measurement sites that are used to characterize the Livermore area are LT-5 and LT-6.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Site LT-4, 4180 Jensen Street (Pleasanton): The Ldn measured at this location was 67 dBA.


measured for 24 hours in the backyard of the residence. This noise site is representative of all

noise-sensitive land uses from Castlewood Drive to Valley Avenue.

Site LT-5, 963 El Rancho Drive (Livermore): The Ldn measured at this location was 57 dBA.


measured for 24 hours in the backyard of the residence. This noise site is representative of all

noise-sensitive land uses from Isabel Avenue to Junction Avenue.

Site LT-6, 14 Jami Street (Livermore): The Ldn measured at this location was 61 dBA. The

dominant noise sources were traffic on local streets and freight traffic. Noise levels were

measured for 24 hours in the front yard of the residence. This noise site is representative of all

noise-sensitive land uses from Junction Avenue to South Vasco Road.

4.12.3.7 Altamont

The predominant noise-sensitive land use along the Altamont segment is scattered single-family

housing. The noise measurement site used to characterize this segment is ST-2.

Site ST-2, Altamont Pass Road (Altamont): The Leq measured at this location was 74 dBA.

The dominant noise source was traffic on Altamont Pass Road. Noise levels were measured for

1 hour on the shoulder of Altamont Pass Road. This noise site is representative of all noise-

sensitive land uses in the Altamont segment.

4.12.3.8 Tracy to Lathrop

The segment from Tracy to Lathrop runs from Tracy to Lathrop south of West Lathrop Road,

including Banta, River Islands, and rural areas. Noise-sensitive receptors in Tracy are Valley

Community Baptist Church, Crossroads Baptist Church, Grace Christian Center, and a mixture of

single- and multifamily homes. The noise-sensitive land uses in Banta are a mixture of single- and

multifamily housing. The noise-sensitive land use in River Islands is single-family housing. Noise-

sensitive receptors in Lathrop south of West Lathrop Road include Lathrop Church of Christ, Living

Word Ministries, Abundant Life Center, and single- and multifamily homes. The noise-sensitive land

use in the rural areas consists of scattered single-family housing.

The noise measurement sites used to characterize Tracy are LT-7 and LT-8. The noise measurement

site used to characterize Banta is LT-9, and the noise measurement site used to characterize River

Islands is LT-10. The noise measurement sites used to characterize the rural areas are ST-3 and

ST-4. The noise measurement site used to characterize Lathrop south of W. Lathrop Road is LT-11.

Site LT-7, 903 South Corral Hollow Road (Tracy): The Ldn measured at this location was 59

dBA. The dominant noise source was traffic on Corral Hollow Road. Other noise sources include

traffic on local streets and freight rail traffic. Noise levels were measured for 24 hours on the

side of the church. This noise measurement site is representative of all noise-sensitive land uses

from South Lammers Road to Tracy Boulevard along the downtown Tracy alignment and from

Corral Hollow Road to South MacArthur Drive along the existing Tracy alignment.

Site LT-8, 606 East Sixth Street (Tracy): The Ldn measured at this location was 64 dBA. The

dominant noise source was traffic on East Sixth Street. Other noise sources include traffic on

local streets and freight rail traffic. Noise levels were measured for 24 hours in the front yard of




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

the residence. This noise site is representative of all noise-sensitive land uses from Tracy

Boulevard to North MacArthur Drive and from South MacArthur Drive to North Chrisman Road

in the study area.

Site LT-9, 22484 Seventh Street (Banta): The Ldn measured at this location was 67 dBA. The

dominant noise sources were traffic on Grant Line Road and Seventh Street. Other noise sources

include noise from Banta Elementary School and freight rail traffic. Noise levels were measured

for 24 hours in the backyard of the residence. This noise measurement site is representative of

all noise-sensitive land uses from Banta to Old River.

Site LT-10, River Islands Welcome Center (River Islands): The Ldn measured at this location

was 60dBA. The dominant noise source was traffic on I-5. Other noise sources include traffic on

local streets and freight rail traffic. Noise levels were measured for 24 hours in the backyard of

the center. This noise measurement site is representative of all noise-sensitive land uses from

River Trigoso Drive to West Yosemite Avenue.

Site LT-11, 15901 Seventh Street (Lathrop): The Ldn measured at this location was 56 dBA.


measured for 24 hours in the front yard of the residence. This noise measurement site is

representative of all noise-sensitive land uses from East Louise Avenue to McKinley Avenue.

Site ST-3, 17775 Midway Road (Livermore): The Leq measured at this location was 46 dBA.

The dominant noise source was the electrical substation. Noise levels were measured for 1 hour

on the shoulder of Midway Road. This noise measurement site is representative of all noise-

sensitive land uses east of Tracy after the Altamont Pass.

Site ST-4, Lovely Road and I-205 (Tracy): The Leq measured at this location was 62 dBA. The

dominant noise sources were traffic on I-5 and Lovely Road. Noise levels were measured for 1

hour on the shoulder of Lovely Road. This noise site is representative of all noise-sensitive land

uses along the Lyoth-Banta Crossover.

4.12.3.9 Lathrop to Stockton

The Lathrop to Stockton segment extends from Lathrop north of W Lathrop Road to the Stockton

Station, including French Camp. The noise-sensitive land uses in Lathrop north of W Lathrop Road

include single- and multifamily housing. The noise-sensitive land uses in French Camp include

single- and multifamily housing. Noise-sensitive receptors in Stockton include Trinity Chapel Church

of God in Christ, Gurdwara Wahib Sikh Temple, and single- and multifamily homes.

The noise measurement site used to characterize Lathrop north of W Lathrop Road is LT-12. The

noise measurement site used to characterize French Camp is ST-5. The noise measurement sites

used to characterize Stockton are LT-13 and ST-6.

Site LT-12, 13521 Quartz Way (Lathrop): The Ldn measured at this location was 52 dBA. The

dominant noise source was traffic on local streets. Noise levels were measured for 24 hours in

the front yard of the residence. This noise measurement site is representative of all noise-

sensitive land uses from McKinley Avenue to Brookfield Avenue.

Site LT-13, 1817 South Aurora Street (Stockton): The Ldn measured at this location was 68

dBA. The dominant noise source was traffic on Aurora Street and freight rail traffic. Noise levels

were measured for 24 hours in the front yard of the residence. This noise measurement site is

representative of all noise-sensitive land uses from California Street to State Route (SR) 4.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Site ST-5, Adas Yeshuran Cemetery (French Camp): The Leq measured at this location was

70 dBA. The dominant noise sources were traffic on South McKinley Avenue and train traffic.

Noise levels were measured for 1 hour on the shoulder of South McKinley Avenue in front of

Adas Yeshuran Cemetery. This noise measurement site is representative of all noise-sensitive

land uses from Roth Road to French Camp Road.

Site ST-6, Stockton Station (Stockton): The Leq measured at this location was 62 dBA. The

dominant noise sources were traffic on E Weber Avenue and SR 4 and urban community noise.

Noise levels were measured for 1 hour on the sidewalk at the northwest corner of Channel

Street and East Weber Avenue. This noise site is representative of all noise-sensitive land uses

from SR 4 to the Stockton Station.

4.12.3.10 Manteca to Modesto

The Manteca to Modesto segment extends from Manteca to Modesto North of L Street, including

Ripon, Salida, and rural areas. Noise-sensitive receptors in Manteca are Jehovah’s Witnesses Church,

Life in Christ Fellowship Church, Crossroads Grace Community Church, Freewill Baptist Church, and

a mixture of single- and multifamily homes. Noise-sensitive receptors in Ripon are Ripon Christian

Schools, Ripon High School, and a mixture of single- and multifamily homes. Noise-sensitive land use

in Salida consists of single-family housing. Noise-sensitive receptors in Modesto, north of L Street,

include Modesto Junior College and single- and multifamily homes. Noise-sensitive land use in the

rural areas consists of scattered single-family housing.

The noise measurement sites used to characterize Manteca are LT-14, LT-15, and ST-7. The noise

measurement site used to characterize the rural areas between Manteca and Ripon is ST-8. The

noise measurement sites used to characterize Ripon are ST-9 and LT-16. The noise measurement

site used to characterize Salida is ST-10. The noise measurement sites used to characterize Modesto

are LT-17, LT-18, ST-11, and ST-12.

Site LT-14, 1548 Malvick Court (Manteca): The Ldn measured at this location was 71 dBA.

The dominant noise sources were the freight trains and traffic on Phillips Drive. Noise levels

were measured for 24 hours on the side of the residence closest to Phillips Drive. This noise

measurement site is representative of all noise-sensitive land uses from South Airport Way to

North Union Road.

Site LT-15, 144 Goodale Court (Manteca): The Ldn measured at this location was 77 dBA. The

dominant noise sources were local road traffic and freight trains. Noise levels were measured

for 24 hours in the backyard of the residence. This noise measurement site is representative of

all noise-sensitive land uses from North Union Road to SR 120.

Site LT-16, 238 No Locust Avenue (Ripon): The Ldn measured at this location was 71 dBA.

The dominant noise sources were SR 99 and freight trains. Noise levels were measured for 24

hours in the backyard of the residence. This noise measurement site is representative of all

noise-sensitive land uses from Fulton Avenue to the Stanislaus River.

Site LT-17, 2508 Strivens Avenue (Modesto): The Ldn measured at this location was 70 dBA.

The dominant noise sources were SR 99 and freight trains. Noise levels were measured for

24 hours in the backyard of the residence. This noise measurement site is representative of all

noise-sensitive land uses from Bangs Avenue to West Briggsmore Avenue on the northbound

side of the tracks.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Site LT-18, 1814 Lauralee Court (Modesto): The Ldn measured at this location was 63dBA.

The dominant noise sources were traffic on SR 99 and freight trains. Noise levels were measured

for 24 hours in the backyard of the property along the back fence. This noise measurement site

is representative of all noise-sensitive land uses from West Briggsmore Avenue to Kansas

Avenue.

Site ST-7, East Atherton Drive (Manteca): The Leq measured at this location was 62 dBA. The

dominant noise sources were traffic on SR 99, SR 120, and freight trains. Noise levels were

measured for 1 hour on the sidewalk at the corner of East Atherton Drive and Tesora Drive This

noise site is representative of all noise-sensitive land use from SR 120 to East Woodward

Avenue.

Site ST-8, 99 North Frontage Road (Ripon): The Leq measured at this location was 72 dBA.

The dominant noise sources were traffic on SR 99 and freight trains. Noise levels were measured

for 1 hour on the shoulder of 99 North Frontage Road approximately 0.5 mile north of South

Olive Avenue. This noise measurement site is representative of all noise-sensitive land uses

from Austin Road to Jack Tone Road.

Site ST-9, Garrison Way (Ripon): The Leq measured at this location was 61 dBA. The dominant

noise sources were traffic at SR 99 and freight trains. Noise levels were measured for 1 hour on

the shoulder of Garrison Way next to the parking lot for the Canal Street Grille. This noise

measurement site is representative of all noise-sensitive land uses from South Olive Avenue to

Fulton Avenue.

Site ST-10, 5213 Whitestone Drive (Salida): The Leq measured at this location was 62 dBA.

The dominant noise source was traffic on SR 99. Noise levels were measured for 1 hour on the

shoulder of Whitestone Drive on the sidewalk across the street from the residence. This noise

measurement site is representative of all noise-sensitive land uses from Hammet Road to

Murphy Road.

Site ST-11, Brink Avenue (Modesto): The Leq measured at this location was 71 dBA. The

dominant noise sources were traffic on SR 99 and freight trains. Noise levels were measured for

1 hour on the shoulder of Brink Avenue close to its intersection with Shoemake Avenue. This

noise site is representative of all noise-sensitive land uses from Murphy Road to West

Briggsmore Avenue on the southbound side of the tracks.

Site ST-12, Eighth Street (Modesto): The Leq measured at this location was 75 dBA. The

dominant noise sources were typical urban activities and activities at the train station. Noise

levels were measured for 1 hour on the sidewalk of Eighth Street across the tracks from the

Modesto Transportation Center. This noise measurement site is representative of all noise-

sensitive land uses from Kansas Avenue to the Modesto Station.

4.12.3.11 Modesto to Merced

The Modesto to Merced segment extends from Modesto south of L Street and includes Bystrom,

Ceres, Keyes, Turlock, Delhi, Livingston, Atwater, and Merced. The noise-sensitive receptors in

Modesto, south of L Street, are First Missionary Baptist Church, Redeemer Modesto, Victory in Praise

Church, and single- and multifamily homes. The noise-sensitive land use in Bystrom is single- and

multifamily housing. The noise-sensitive receptors in Ceres are First Missionary Baptist Church, Mar

Gewargis Assyrian Church of the East, and single- and multifamily homes. The noise-sensitive land

use in Keyes is single-family housing. The noise-sensitive receptors in Turlock are New Hope




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Church, Good News Tabernacle, and single- and multifamily homes. The noise-sensitive land uses in

Delhi are single- and multifamily housing. The noise-sensitive receptors in Livingston are Apostolic

Assembly and single- and multifamily homes. The noise-sensitive land uses in Atwater are single-

and multifamily houses. The noise-sensitive receptors in Merced are Merced Baptist Church and

single- and multifamily homes. The existing noise levels in this segment are similar to those in the

Manteca to Modesto segment.

Modesto to Merced is a longer-term improvement segment only; therefore, quantitative noise

measurements at specific sites were not conducted.

4.12.4 Impact Analysis

This section describes the environmental impacts of the ACEforward’s near-term and longer-term

improvements on noise and vibration. It describes the methods used to evaluate the impacts and the

thresholds used to determine whether an impact would be significant. Measures to mitigate

significant impacts are provided, where appropriate.

4.12.4.1 Methods for Analysis

The approach to evaluating noise and vibration impacts varies between near-term improvements

and longer-term improvements. Noise and vibration impacts associated with the construction of

specific near-term improvements and increased operational service capacity are analyzed

quantitatively. Construction noise impacts for longer-term improvements are qualitatively

presented because detailed construction plans will not be available before publication of this

document. Noise and vibration impacts from longer-term improvement operational service capacity

increases are presented quantitatively. The approach can be summarized as follows.

Analyze direct noise and vibration impacts through quantitative and qualitative analysis.

To assess station noise and vibration, consider train type; train schedules (number of stopping

trains and number of through trains during daytime and nighttime hours); number of cars in

each train; speed profiles for stopping and through trains; plans and profiles of station

structures; landform topography; and noise level changes associated with alterations to train

service volumes.

To assess railroad noise and vibration, consider train type; train schedules (number of through

trains during daytime and nighttime hours); number of cars in each train; speed profiles;

landform topography; and noise level changes associated with alterations to train service

volumes.

To assess construction noise emissions, consider equipment expected to be used by contractors

during construction, usage scenarios for how equipment would be operated, estimated site

layouts of equipment along the ROW, and the location of construction operations with respect to

nearby noise-sensitive receivers.

To assess construction vibration, account for vibration from construction equipment, estimated

site layout of equipment along the ROW, and the location of construction operations with

respect to nearby sensitive receivers.

Include the following scenarios: existing plus construction; operation of near-term

improvements; and operation of near-term improvements plus longer-term improvements.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Refer to FTA’s guidance manual, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Federal Transit

Administration 2006).

Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Methodology

The construction noise impact assessment used the methodology described in the FTA guidance

manual (Federal Transit Administration 2006). SJRRC, UPRR and their contractors will make

decisions regarding procedures and equipment. For this analysis, construction scenarios for typical

railroad construction projects are used to predict noise impacts. The construction noise

methodology includes the following information.

Noise emissions from typical equipment used by contractors

Construction methods

Scenarios for equipment usage

Estimated site layouts of equipment along the ROW

Proximity of construction activities to nearby noise-sensitive receivers

FTA construction noise assessment criteria

The FTA guidance manual (Federal Transit Administration 2006) also provides the methodology for

the assessment of construction vibration impacts. Estimated construction scenarios have been

developed for typical railroad construction projects allowing a quantitative construction vibration

assessment to be conducted. Construction vibration is assessed quantitatively where a potential for

blasting, pile-driving, vibratory compaction, demolition, or excavation close to vibration-sensitive

structures exists. The methodology included the following information.

Vibration source levels from equipment used by contractors

Estimated site layouts of equipment along the ROW

Relationship of construction activities to nearby vibration-sensitive receivers

FTA vibration impact criteria for annoyance and building damage

Train Operation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Methodology

Train operation noise and vibration levels were projected using current ACEforward operation plans

and the prediction models provided in the FTA guidance manual (Federal Transit Administration

2006). Potential impacts were evaluated in accordance with the Detailed Noise Analysis and General

Vibration Assessment procedures outlined in the FTA guidance manual. The methodology and

assumptions for train operation are listed below.

Currently, ACE operates four roundtrip weekday trains between Stockton and San Jose—four

westbound morning trains from Stockton to San Jose, and four eastbound afternoon trains from

San Jose to Stockton.

For near-term improvements (six trains), there are two ACE operational scenarios.

Scenario A-1

In the morning, four westbound trains from Stockton to San Jose and two westbound

trains from Modesto to San Jose.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

In the afternoon, four eastbound trains from San Jose to Stockton and two eastbound

trains from San Jose to Modesto.

Scenario A-2

All six trains provide service between Stockton and San Jose (assumes no extension to

Modesto).

In the morning, six westbound trains from Stockton to San Jose.

In the afternoon, six eastbound trains from San Jose to Stockton.

For longer-term improvements (10 trains), there are two ACE operational scenarios.

Scenario B-1

In the morning, four westbound trains from Stockton to San Jose and six westbound

trains from Merced to San Jose.

In the afternoon, four eastbound trains from San Jose to Stockton and six eastbound

trains from San Jose to Modesto.

Scenario B-2

All 10 trains provide service between Stockton and San Jose (assumes no extension to

Merced).

In the morning, 10 westbound trains from Stockton to San Jose.

In the afternoon, 10 eastbound trains from San Jose to Stockton.

For near-term improvements through 2020, there are the following changes to freight rail

service.

In Niles Canyon, under two scenarios (Alternatives CNS-2a and CNS-2b), five freight

trains would be shifted from the Oakland Subdivision to the Niles Canyon Railway

(NCRY).

On the Niles Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Elmhurst Junction, there would be an

increase of four freight trains under Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b, with a

corresponding decrease in freight train traffic from Niles Junction to Newark Junction

and on the Coast Subdivision from Newark Junction to Elmhurst Junction.

On the Oakland Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Industrial Parkway and on the Niles

Subdivision from Industrial Parkway to Elmhurst Junction, there would be an increase

of four freight trains under Alternative CNS-1c, with a corresponding decrease in

freight train traffic from Niles Junction to Newark Junction and on the Coast Subdivision

from Newark Junction to Elmhurst Junction.

For longer-term through 2040, there are the following changes to freight rail service.

In Niles Canyon, under two scenarios (Alternatives CNS-2a and CNS-2b), eight freight

trains would be shifted from the Oakland Subdivision to the NCRY.

On the Niles Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Elmhurst Junction, there would be an

increase of six freight trains under Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b, with a

corresponding decrease in freight train traffic from Niles Junction to Newark Junction

and on the Coast Subdivision from Newark Junction to Elmhurst Junction.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

On the Oakland Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Industrial Parkway and on the Niles

Subdivision from Industrial Parkway to Elmhurst Junction, there would be an increase

of six freight trains under Alternative CNS-1c, with a corresponding decrease in freight

train traffic from Niles Junction to Newark Junction and on the Coast Subdivision from

Newark Junction to Elmhurst Junction.

The longer-term improvements would not affect the ability for freight to use the Niles

Subdivision or the Oakland Subdivision north of Niles Junction or to use the NCRY. Any

change in potential use of different rail lines would be because of near-term

improvements. Instead, the analysis presented for the longer-term reflects the

independent growth in freight traffic over time.

Projected and existing ambient noise exposures were tabulated at the identified receivers or

clusters of receivers and the levels of noise impact (no impact, moderate impact, or severe impact)

were identified by comparing the existing and train noise exposure based on the applicable FTA

noise impact criteria. Similarly, projected and existing maximum train vibration levels were

tabulated at vibration-sensitive locations and potential impacts were identified based on the

applicable FTA vibration impact criteria along with FTA guidance on how to account for existing

vibration.

4.12.4.2 Thresholds of Significance

The State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq) has identified

significance criteria to be considered for determining whether a project could have significant

impacts on sensitive land use from noise and vibration.

An impact would be considered significant if construction or operation of the project would have

any of the following consequences.

Expose persons to (or generate noise levels in excess of) severe impact standards for a severe

impact established by FTA for transit projects and other changes related to the project. These

standards cover both permanent and temporary/periodic increases in ambient noise levels in

the project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project.

Expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.

Permanently substantially increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels

existing without the project.

Temporarily or periodically substantially increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity

above levels existing without the project.

The noise and vibration impact criteria for ACEforward are based on FTA and FRA guidelines, and

are described in the following subsections.

FTA Noise Criteria

Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Criteria

Construction activities associated with a large transportation project often generate noise and

vibration complaints even though they take place only for a limited time. For ACEforward,

construction noise and vibration impact is assessed where the exposure of noise- and vibration-

sensitive receivers to construction-related noise or vibration is expected to occur at levels exceeding




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

standards established by FTA and established thresholds for architectural and structural building

damage (Federal Transit Administration 2006).

Construction Noise Impact Criteria

Table 4.12-3 presents FTA noise assessment criteria for construction. The last column applies to

construction activities that extend over 30 days near any given receiver. Ldn is used to assess

impacts in residential areas and 24-hour Leq is used in commercial and industrial areas. The 8-hour

Leq and the 30-day average Ldn noise exposure from construction noise calculations use the noise

emission levels of the construction equipment, its location, and operating hours. The construction

noise limits are normally assessed at the noise-sensitive receiver property line.

Table 4.12-3. Federal Transit Administration Construction Noise Assessment Criteria

Land Use

8-hour Leq, dBa Noise Exposure, Ldn, dBA

Day Night 30-day Average

Residential 80 70 75a

Commercial 85 85 80b

Industrial 90 90 85b a In urban areas with very high ambient noise levels (Ldn greater than 65 dB), Ldn from construction operations

should not exceed existing ambient noise levels + 10 dB. b 24-hour Leq, not Ldn.

Source: Federal Transit Administration 2006




dB = decibels

Construction Vibration Impact Criteria

Guidelines in the FTA guidance manual (Federal Transit Administration 2006) provide the basis for

the construction vibration assessment. FTA provides construction vibration criteria designed

primarily to prevent building damage, and to assess whether vibration might interfere with

vibration-sensitive building activities or temporarily annoy building occupants during the

construction period. The FTA criteria include two ways to express vibration levels: (1) root-mean-

square (RMS) vibration velocity level (Lv, in VdB) for annoyance and activity interference; and (2)

peak particle velocity (PPV), which is the maximum instantaneous peak of a vibration signal used for

assessments of damage potential.

To avoid temporary annoyance to building occupants during construction or construction

interference with vibration-sensitive equipment inside special-use buildings, such as a magnetic

resonance imaging (MRI) machine, FTA recommends using the long-term operational vibration

criteria provided in the section below.

Table 4.12-4 shows FTA building damage criteria for construction activity; the table lists PPV and

approximate Lv limits for four building categories. These limits are used to estimate potential

problems that should be addressed during final design.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-4. Construction Vibration Damage Criteria

Building Category PPV (inch/sec) Approximate Lva

I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102

II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98

III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94

IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 a RMS vibration velocity level in VdB relative to 1 micro-inch/second.


PPV = peak particle velocity

RMS = root-mean-square

VdB = vibration decibel

Operational Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Criteria

Train Noise Impact Criteria

The descriptors and criteria for assessing noise impact vary according to land use categories

adjacent to the track. For land uses where people live and sleep (e.g., residential neighborhoods,

hospitals, and hotels), Ldn is the assessment parameter. For other land use types where there are

noise-sensitive uses (e.g., outdoor concert areas, schools, and libraries), Leq(h) for an hour of noise

sensitivity that coincides with train activity is the assessment parameter. Table 4.12-5 summarizes

the three land use categories.

Table 4.12-5. Federal Transit Administration Noise-Sensitive Land Uses

Land Use Category

Noise Metric (dBA) Land Use Category

1 Outdoor Leq(h)*

Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, such as outdoor amphitheaters, concert pavilions, and National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use.

2 Outdoor Ldn Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes and hospitals, where nighttime sensitivity to noise is of utmost importance.

3 Outdoor Leq(h)*

Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, and churches, where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration. Buildings with interior spaces where quiet is important, such as medical offices, conference rooms, recording studios, and concert halls fall into this category, as well as places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, and museums. Certain historical sites, parks, and recreational facilities are also included.

* Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity.








May 2017 ICF 00458.15

The noise impact criteria used by FTA and FRA are ambient-based; the increase in future noise

(future noise levels with ACEforward compared to existing noise levels) is assessed rather than the

noise caused by each passing train. It is important to note that the criteria do not specify a

comparison of future ACEforward noise with projections of future no-action noise. This is because

comparison of a noise projection with an existing noise condition is more accurate than comparison

of a projection with another noise projection (Federal Railroad Administration 2012: Section 3.2.2).

Because background noise is expected to increase by the time ACEforward improvements start

generating noise, this approach of using existing noise conditions is conservative. Figure 4.12-8

shows FTA noise impact criteria for human annoyance. Depending on the magnitude of the

cumulative noise increases, FTA and FRA categorize impacts as (1) no impact, (2) moderate impact,

or (3) severe impact. Severe impact is where a significant percentage of people would be highly

annoyed by the project’s noise. Moderate impact is where the change in cumulative noise level

would be noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to generate strong, negative reactions.

Although the curves in Figure 4.12-8 are defined in terms of the project noise exposure and the

existing noise exposure, the increase in the cumulative noise—when project-generated noise is

added to existing noise levels—is the basis for the criteria. To illustrate this point, Figure 4.12-9

shows the noise impact criteria for Category 1 and Category 2 land uses in terms of the allowable

increase in the cumulative noise exposure. Because Ldn and Leq are measures of total acoustic

energy, any new noise source in a community will cause an increase, even if the new source level is

lower than the existing level. In Figure 4.12-10, the criterion for a moderate impact allows a noise

exposure increase of 10 dB if the existing noise exposure is 42 dBA or less, but only a 1 dB increase

when the existing noise exposure is 70 dBA.

As the existing level of ambient noise increases, the allowable level of transit noise increases, but the

total amount that community noise exposure is allowed to increase is reduced. This accounts for the

unexpected result that a project noise exposure that is lower than the existing noise exposure can

still cause an effect.

Train Vibration Impact Criteria

FTA and FRA provide guidelines to assess the human response to different levels of ground-borne

noise and vibration, as presented in Table 4.12-6. These levels represent the maximum vibration

level of an individual train passby. A vibration event occurs each time a train passes the building or

property and causes discernible vibration. “Frequent Events” are more than 70 vibration events per

day, “Occasional Events” are 30–70 vibration events per day and “Infrequent Events” are fewer than

30 vibration events per day. The guidelines also provide criteria for special buildings that are very

sensitive to ground-borne noise and vibration, such as concert halls, recording studios, and theaters.

Table 4.12-7 shows the impact criteria for special buildings.

Ground-borne vibration impacts from train operations inside vibration-sensitive buildings are

defined by the vibration velocity level, expressed in terms of VdB, and the number of vibration

events per day from the same kind of source. Table 4.12-6 summarizes vibration sensitivity in terms

of the three land use categories and the criteria for acceptable ground-borne vibrations and

acceptable ground-borne noise. Ground-borne noise is a low-frequency rumbling sound inside

buildings, caused by vibrations of floors, walls, and ceilings. Ground-borne noise is generally not a

problem for buildings near railroad tracks at or above grade, because the airborne noise from trains

typically overshadows effects of ground-borne noise. Ground-borne noise becomes an issue in cases

where airborne noise cannot be heard, such as for buildings near tunnels.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Tables 4.12-6 and 4.12-7 include separate FTA criteria for ground-borne noise. Although the criteria

are expressed in dBA, which emphasizes the more audible middle and high frequencies, the criteria

are significantly lower than airborne noise criteria to account for the annoying low-frequency

character of ground-borne noise. Because airborne noise often masks ground-borne noise for

aboveground (i.e., at-grade or elevated) railroad tracks, ground-borne noise criteria apply primarily

to operations in a tunnel, where airborne noise is not a factor, and to buildings with sensitive

interior spaces that are well insulated from exterior noise.

Table 4.12-6. Federal Transit Administration Ground-borne Vibration and Ground-borne Noise Impact Criteria

Land Use Category

Ground-borne Vibration Impact Levels

(VdB re 1 micro-inch /sec)

Ground-borne Noise Impact Levels

(dBA re 20 micro Pascals)

Frequent Events

Occasional Events

Infrequent Events

Frequent Events

Occasional Events

Infrequent Events

Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations.

65 VdBa 65 VdBa 65 VdBa N/Ab N/Ab N/Ab

Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep.

72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use.

75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA

a This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. For equipment that is more sensitive, a Detailed Vibration Analysis must be performed.

b Vibration-sensitive equipment is generally not sensitive to ground-borne noise.




N/A = not applicable




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-7. Federal Transit Administration Ground-borne Vibration and Ground-borne Noise Impact Criteria for Special Buildings

Type of Building or Room

Ground-borne Vibration Impact Levels (VdB re 1 micro-inch/sec)

Ground-borne Noise Impact Levels (dBA re 20 micro-Pascals)

Frequent Events

Occasional or Infrequent Events

Frequent Events

Occasional or Infrequent Events

Concert Halls 65 VdB 65 VdB 25 dBA 25 dBA

TV Studios 65 VdB 65 VdB 25 dBA 25 dBA

Recording Studios 65 VdB 65 VdB 25 dBA 25 dBA

Auditoriums 72 VdB 80 VdB 30 dBA 38 dBA

Theaters 72 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA




One factor not incorporated in the criteria is existing vibration. In most cases, except near railroad

tracks, the existing environment does not include a substantial number of perceptible ground-borne

vibration or noise events. However, rail projects sometimes use parts of existing rail routes. The

criteria presented in Tables 4.12-6 and 4.12-7 do not indicate how to account for existing vibration,

a common situation for rail projects using existing rail ROWs. Representative scenarios for existing

vibrations can be assessed using the following methods.

Infrequently used rail route: Use the vibration criteria from Tables 4.12-6 and 4.12-7 when

the existing rail traffic consists of four trains or fewer per day.

Moderately used rail route: If the existing rail traffic consists of 5 to 12 trains per day with

vibration that substantially exceeds the impact criteria, there would be no effect as long as the

project vibration levels are at least 5 VdB less than the existing vibration. Vibration from

existing trains can be estimated using the General Assessment procedures in Chapter 10 of the

FTA guidelines.

Heavily used rail route: If the existing traffic exceeds 12 trains per day and if the project would

not substantially increase the number of vibration events (less than doubling the number of

trains is usually considered not substantial), there would be no additional effect unless the

project vibration, estimated using the procedures of Chapter 10 of the FTA guidelines, would be

higher than the existing vibration. In locations where the new trains would be operating at

higher speeds than the existing rail traffic, the trains would likely generate substantially higher

levels of ground-borne vibration. When the project would cause vibration more than 5 VdB

greater than the existing source, the existing source can be ignored and the vibration criteria in

Tables 4.12-6 and 4.12-7 can be applied to the project.

Moving existing tracks: Another scenario where existing vibration can be substantial is a new

rail line within an existing rail ROW that requires shifting the location of existing tracks. Where

the track relocation would cause higher vibration levels at sensitive receptors, the projected

vibration levels from both rail systems must be compared to the appropriate impact criterion to

determine if there would be a new effect. If an effect is judged to have existed prior to moving

the tracks, new effects would be assessed only if the relocation would result in more than a 3




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

VdB increase in vibration level. Although the impact thresholds given in Tables 4.12-6 and 4.12-

7 are based on experience with vibration from rail transit systems, the thresholds can be applied

to freight train vibrations as well. However, locomotive and rail car vibration should be

considered separately. Because locomotive vibration only lasts for a few seconds, the

infrequent-event limit is appropriate, but for a typical line haul freight train where the rail car

vibration lasts for several minutes, the frequent-event limits should be applied to the rail car

vibration. Some judgment must be exercised to make sure that the approach is reasonable. For

example, some spur rail lines carry very little rail traffic (sometimes only one train per week) or

have short trains, in which case the infrequent-event limits are appropriate.

4.12.4.3 Near-Term Improvements Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact NOI-1 Construction of near-term improvements could expose sensitive receptors to substantial increases in noise levels.

Level of Impact Potentially significant

Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1: Implement a construction noise control plan

Level of Impact after Mitigation

Significant and unavoidable

Impact Characterization

Construction for the various near-term improvements would include three basic activities: (1) site

work, (2) rail work and (3) structures work. Depending on the near-term alternative, site work is

expected to occur over periods of 1–21 months, rail work is expected to occur over periods of 1–28

months, and structures work is expected to occur over periods of 6–26 months. Generally,

construction of a near-term improvement could last anywhere from 8 to 42 months, depending on

the improvement (See Chapter 2, Description of Near-Term Improvements). Because most near-term

improvements are located on an active freight and passenger rail line, construction work could

occur during the nighttime. The local noise ordinances for the cities and counties along the

ACEforward corridor generally limit construction noise to particular time periods during weekday,

weekend, and holiday daytime hours. Nighttime construction work is generally prohibited, but some

jurisdictions allow for a variance.

Table 4.12-8 summarizes the estimated construction noise levels and residential noise impact

screening distances for each of the planned construction activities. The noise estimates are based on

scenarios for the construction activities, using FTA methodology described in Section 4.12.4.1,

Methods for Analysis, and FTA criteria described in Section 4.12.4.2. However, to be conservative, the

screening distance estimates did not assume any topography or ground effects. The results of the

analysis indicate that noise impacts would be limited to residences within 135 to 270 feet from the

construction site, depending on the activity. The potential for noise impact would be greatest during

structures work at locations where pile driving is required for bridge construction.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-8. Residential Noise Impact Assessment for Construction Activities

Construction Activity and Equipment

Noise Level at 50 feet (dBA)

Equipment Usage Factor (%)

8-Hour Leq at 50 feet (dBA)

Approx. Noise Impact Distance (feet)

Predicted Exposure

Daytime Criterion

SITE WORK 89 80 135

Grader 85 53 82 -- --

Water Truck 84 44 80 -- --

D6 Dozer 85 61 83 -- --

D8 Dozer 85 45 82 -- --

Compactor 82 45 79 -- --

Dump Truck 84 23 78 -- --

RAIL WORK 90 80 150

Locomotive 88 25 82 -- --

D6 Dozer 85 38 81 -- --

Grader 85 38 81 -- --

Water Truck 84 38 80 -- --

Tamper 83 20 76 -- --

Aligner 85 20 78 -- --

Swinger 85 19 78 -- --

Welder 74 38 70 -- --

Flat Bed Truck 84 31 79 -- --

Pickup Truck 75 25 69 -- --

SUV 75 31 70 -- --

35 Ton RT Crane 83 38 79 -- --

Flat Bed Tractor 84 13 75 -- --

Wheel Loader 80 28 74 -- --

STRUCTURES 95 80 270

Impact Pile Driver 101 20 94

Generator 82 90 82 -- --

75 T Mobile Crane 83 38 79 -- --

Water Truck 84 20 77 -- --

Flat Bed Truck 84 25 78 -- --

Pickup Truck 75 53 72 -- --

Concrete Mixer 85 13 76 -- --

Concrete Pump 82 18 75 -- --

Wheel Loader 80 20 73 -- --

Welder 74 31 69 -- --






May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Significance Conclusion and Mitigation Measures

Significance Prior to Mitigation

Construction activities would be considered to have a significant impact if they would generate

noise exposure in excess of the FTA thresholds. As shown in Table 4.12-8, the operation of certain

construction equipment and construction activities could generate noise exposure in excess of FTA

thresholds. Nighttime construction near residential uses would have larger impacts than daytime

construction would have and would result in a potentially significant impact.

Significance with Application of Mitigation

Although the measures specified in Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1 would generally reduce the

construction noise levels, the measures would not necessarily guarantee that sensitive residential

receptors would not be exposed to noise levels exceeding the 80 dBA limit during the day or the 70

dBA limit at night. In specific, given the active railroad, it is probable that construction near some

residential areas will have to be conducted at night to avoid disruption of freight and passenger rail

operations and to complete construction on schedule. Furthermore, a temporary sound wall may be

effective in certain locations, but in many cases the nature of the construction work makes use of

such sound walls infeasible.

Construction-related noise would be short-term and would cease after the construction is

completed. Still, even with mitigation, the impact of temporary construction-related noise on nearby

noise sensitive receptors would remain a significant and unavoidable impact, in particular where

heavy construction would occur immediately adjacent to residences and where construction would

occur at night near residences.

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measure would apply to all near-term improvements for construction

noise impacts.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1: Implement a construction noise control plan

A noise control plan that incorporates, at a minimum, the following best practices into the

construction scope of work and specifications to reduce the impact of temporary construction-

related noise on nearby noise-sensitive receptors will be prepared and implemented.

Install temporary construction site sound barriers near noise sources.

Use moveable sound barriers at the source of the construction activity.

Avoid the use of impact pile drivers where possible near noise-sensitive areas or use quieter

alternatives (e.g., drilled piles) where geological conditions permit.

Locate stationary construction equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive sites.

Re-route construction-related truck traffic along roadways that will cause the least

disturbance to residents.

Use low-noise emission equipment.

Implement noise-deadening measures for truck loading and operations.

Line or cover storage bins, conveyors, and chutes with sound-deadening material.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Use acoustic enclosures, shields, or shrouds for equipment and facilities.

Use high-grade engine exhaust silencers and engine-casing sound insulation.

Minimize the use of generators to power equipment.

Limit use of public address systems.

Grade surface irregularities on construction sites.

Monitor and maintain equipment to meet noise limits.

Establish an active community liaison program to keep residents informed about

construction and to provide a procedure for addressing complaints.

Impact NOI-2 Increased passenger service on existing routes, new passenger service on new routes, and relocated freight service could result in severe noise impacts.

Level of Impact Potentially significant (increased passenger service and relocated freight service)

Less than significant (station options)

Mitigation Measures NOI-2.1: Implement a phased program to reduce train noise along the ACE corridor as necessary to address noise increases over Federal Transit Administration’s severe impact thresholds


Significant and unavoidable (increased passenger service and relocated freight service, depending on mitigation efficacy)


The noise impact assessment for the near-term improvements evaluates four major components.

1. Near-term improvements. Individual near-term improvements were assessed for their potential

for impact in the vicinity of the specific improvements. In most cases, individual near-term

improvements by themselves do not result in noise impacts.

2. Increased passenger service. The increase in passenger service throughout the corridor made

possible by the near-term improvements was assessed for impact. This assessment included all

locations throughout the ACEforward corridor, and not just those near specific near-term

improvements. Because of the relatively small increase in passenger service at the near-term

improvement level, there are minimal impacts related only to the increase in passenger service.

3. Near-term improvements plus increased passenger service. In Tracy, the near-term

improvements would relocate the existing passenger service and the increased passenger

service. These relocations were assessed as new projects for noise impacts. The majority of the

noise impacts at the near-term improvement level are at these locations.

4. Relocated freight service. In Niles Canyon and the Niles Subdivision, some of the near-term

improvements would relocate the freight rail operations onto the Niles Canyon Railroad and/or

would allow for increased freight operations on the Niles Subdivision north of Niles Junction to

and from Oakland.3 These relocations of operations were assessed for noise impacts.

3 Alternatives that include a connection to the Niles Subdivision at Niles Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1c,

CNS-2a, and CNS-2b) would result in increased freight north of Niles Junction on the Niles Subdivision and a




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-9 summarizes the results of the noise impact assessment for near-term improvements.

The impacts related to either 1) near-term improvements or 3) near-term improvements plus

increased passenger service are listed in the rows for specific near-term improvements. The overall

impacts related to 2) increased passenger service are listed in the top-level heading for each

segment. Impacts associated with 4) relocated freight service are addressed separately.

For locations with only increased passenger or freight service, the FTA increase in noise level

criteria were used to assess impact. At other locations, the FTA project noise level criteria were used

to assess the potential for impact.

All of the severe impacts, and the majority of the moderate impacts for near-term improvements are

at locations within 0.25 mile of grade crossings where train horns would be sounded. Most of these

impacts are at the areas where there are new near-term improvements that relocate the existing

service in addition to increasing the passenger service.

Impact Differences by Segment

Near-term impact tables referenced in this discussion are provided in 4.12.5.1, Near-term Impact

Tables.

San Jose to Fremont

There would be no noise impacts in this segment related to the near-term improvements or

increased passenger train service. Alternative SJF-1 would not result in any noise impacts.


The majority of the impacts under all alternatives would occur in Sunol and the residential area near

Niles Junction, except Alternative CNS-1c. Alternatives CNS-1a and CNS-1b have the same number

of impacts. Alternative CNS-1c would have a greater number of impacts associated with the

connection of the Niles Subdivision at Industrial Parkway. The additional freight trains along this

line would cause an increase in noise similar to that discussed in the Niles Subdivision section

above. Alternatives CNS-2a and CNS-2b would have fewer impacts because of the relocation of the

freight traffic onto the NCRY (instead of use of the existing UPRR line), which would lower the

project noise along the existing UPRR ROW (and there are fewer receptors along the NCRY, which

would experience an increase in train noise with Alternatives CNS-2a and CNS-2b), as presented in

Table 4.12-9.


As described, several near-term alternatives would allow for the shift of freight operations from the

Coast Subdivision (existing) onto the Niles Subdivision. Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b,

would all establish a new rail connection (either from the NCRY or from the Oakland Subdivision) at

Niles Junction to the Niles Subdivision, which would allow freight trains from Oakland to access

Niles Canyon via the Niles Subdivision (and vice-versa). This new rail connection would increase

freight trains along this route compared to existing conditions. The impacts for all three alternatives

would be the same on the Niles Subdivision. Additionally, there would be reductions in noise on the

Coast Subdivision and the Niles Subdivision from Niles Junction to Newark Junction.

corresponding decrease in freight activity on the Niles Subdivision through Centerville and the Coast Subdivision between Newark and Oakland.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Oakland Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Industrial Parkway/Niles Subdivision, from Industrial Parkway to Elmhurst Junction

Alternative CNS-1c would establish a new rail connection between the Oakland Subdivision and the

Niles Subdivision at Industrial Parkway in Union City, which would allow freight trains from

Oakland to access Niles Canyon via the Oakland Subdivision (and vice-versa). This new rail

connection would increase freight trains along the Niles Subdivision (between Elmhurst Junction

and Industrial Parkway) and the Oakland Subdivision (between Industrial Parkway and Niles

Junction) compared to existing conditions. The impacts on the Niles Subdivision north of Industrial

Parkway for Alternative CNS-1c would be the same as Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b.

Additionally, there would be reductions in noise on the Coast Subdivision and the Niles Subdivision

from Niles Junction to Newark Junction.

There would be noise impacts on residents along the segments of Niles Subdivision and Oakland

Subdivision, north of Niles Junction (as described above), because of the increase in freight traffic

along the corridor, as presented in Table 4.12-16. Institutional noise impact would occur as well, as

presented in Table 4.12-17.

Tri-Valley

There would be noise impacts for the common portions of the Tri-Valley segment, as presented in

Table 4.12-9. However, there would be no noise impacts associated with Alternatives TV-1 or TV-

2.

Altamont

There would be no noise impacts in this segment related to Alternative A-1 or increased passenger

train service.

Tracy to Lathrop

Alignment Options

Alternatives TL-1, TL-2a, TL-2b, TL-3, TL-4a, and TL-4b would all result in noise impacts.

However, because of the new track, Alternatives TL-2a, TL-2b, TL-4a, and TL-4b would result in

much greater numbers of noise impacts because of the locations of new tracks near sensitive

receptors that were not previously exposed to train noise, as presented in Table 4.12-9.

Station Options

There would be no noise impacts associated with any of the station options in the Tracy to Lathrop

segment because none of the stations are located near any sensitive receptors.

Lathrop to Stockton

There would be no noise impacts in this segment related to Alternative LS-1 or increased

passenger train service because there are no sensitive receptors located near the Stockton Station.

Manteca to Modesto

There would be some impacts for the common portions of the Manteca to Modesto segment, as

presented in Table 4.12-9. These impacts are associated only with Scenario A-1. Neither Alternative

MMO-1a nor MMO-1b would result in noise impacts.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Impact Quantification

Table 4.12-9 provides an overview of the noise impacts associated with the near-term

improvements and increased passenger service. Table 4.12-14through Table 4.12-43 provide

detailed information regarding impacts in each segment, including locations, existing noise levels,

noise levels with near-term improvements or noise level increases with near-term improvements,

impact thresholds, and numbers of severe and moderate impacts. Figures 4.12-10 through 4.12-21

show the locations of noise impacts graphically. The section below provides a narrative discussion

of noise impacts.

Table 4.12-9. Noise Impacts in the Vicinity of Near-Term Improvements

Near-Term Improvement Alternatives

Noise Impacts

Moderate Severe

San Jose to Fremonta 0 0

SJF-1 0 0

Centerville/Niles/Sunola 0 0

CNS-1a, CNS-1b, CNS-1c 93 1

CNS-2a 49 0

CNS-2b 48 1

Niles Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Elmhurst Junction)a

CNS-1a, CNS-1c, CNS-2a, CNS-2b 1,524 2,108


CNS-1c 1,342 1,840

Tri-Valleya 30 0

TV-1 0 0

TV-2 0 0

Altamonta 0 0

A-1 0 0

Tracy to Lathrop—Alignment Optionsa All impacts are included below

TL-1 31 0

TL-2a 218 3

TL-2b 217 3

TL-3 29 1

TL-4a 222 3

TL-4b 221 3

Tracy to Lathrop—Station Options

West Tracy Station A-1 0 0





West Tracy Station B-1 0 0

West Tracy Station B-2 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Near-Term Improvement Alternatives

Noise Impacts

Moderate Severe

Existing Tracy Station 0 0

Downtown Tracy Station 0 0

Existing Lathrop/Manteca Station 0 0

Relocated Lathrop/Manteca Station 0 0

River Islands Station 0 0

Lathrop to Stocktona 0 0

LS-1 0 0

Manteca to Modestob 40 0

MMO-1a 0 0

MMO-1b 0 0 a. The impacts in these areas are related to the increase in passenger train traffic. b. The impacts in the Manteca to Modesto segment are associated with Scenario A-1 only. Scenario A-2 has no

extension to Modesto.

San Jose to Fremont

As presented in Tables 4.12-14 and 4.12-15, there are no moderate or severe noise impacts on

residential or institutional receptors along this segment related to near-term increase in ACE

passenger service.



residential or institutional receptors in association with Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1b, and CNS-1c

in Fremont west of Niles Junction.

As presented in Tables 4.12 22 and 4.12-23 and shown on Figure 4.12-13, there are moderate or

severe noise impacts on residential receptors (but no moderate or severe impacts on institutional

receptors) in association with Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1b, and CNS-1c at the following locations.

Mission Boulevard to Canyon Heights Drive (Fremont): Moderate noise impact is projected

at 39 single-family residences along the northbound side of Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1b, and

CNS-1c between Mission Boulevard and Canyon Heights Drive. These noise impacts are because

of the proximity of the tracks and the train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.


at 29 single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1b, and

CNS-1c between Mission Boulevard and Canyon Heights Drive. These noise impacts are because


Canyon Heights Drive to Stenhammer Drive (Fremont): Moderate noise impact is projected

at 21 single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1b, and

CNS-1c between Canyon Heights Drive and Stenhammer Drive. These noise impacts are because


Second Street to Carver Lane (Sunol): Moderate noise impact is projected at two single-family

residences, and severe noise impact is projected at one single-family residence along the




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

northbound side of Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1b, and CNS-1c between Second Street and

Carver Lane. The noise impacts at this location are related to train horn noise at the nearby

grade crossings.


residences along the southbound side of Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1b, and CNS-1c between

Second Street and Carver Lane. The noise impacts at this location are related to train horn noise

at the nearby grade crossings.

As presented in Tables 4.12-24 and 4.12-25 and shown on Figure 4.12-15, there are moderate noise

impacts, but no severe noise impacts, to residential receptors (and no moderate or severe impacts

on institutional receptors) in association with Alternative CNS-2a at the following location:


at 19 single-family residences along the northbound side of Alternative CNS-2a between

Mission Boulevard and Canyon Heights Drive. These noise impacts are because of the proximity

of the tracks and the train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.


at 21 single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative CNS-2a between

Mission Boulevard and Canyon Heights Drive. These noise impacts are because of the proximity


Canyon Heights Drive to Stenhammer Drive (Fremont): Moderate noise impact is projected

at four single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative CNS-2a between

Canyon Heights Drive and Stenhammer Drive. These noise impacts are because of the proximity




northbound side of Alternative CNS-2a between Second Street and Carver Lane. The noise

impacts at this location are related to train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.


residences along the southbound side of Alternative CNS-2a between Second Street and Carver

Lane. The noise impacts at this location are related to train horn noise at the nearby grade

crossings.

As presented in Tables 4.12-24 and 4.12-25 and shown on Figure 4.12-16, there are moderate or


receptors) in association with Alternative CNS-2b at the following locations.



northbound side of Alternative CNS-2b between Second Street and Carver Lane. The noise

impacts at this location are related to train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.


residences along the southbound side of Alternative CNS-2b between Second Street and Carver

Lane. The noise impacts at this location are related to train horn noise at the nearby grade

crossings.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Niles Subdivision, from Newark Junction to Elmhurst Junction

As presented in Tables 4.12-16 and 4.12-17 and shown in Figure 4.12-12, there are moderate or

severe noise impacts on residential and institutional receptors in association with Alternatives

CNS-1a, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b at the following locations due to the shifting of freight from the Coast

Subdivision to the Niles Subdivision.

Niles Junction to Nursery Avenue (Niles): Moderate noise impact is projected at 47

residences, and severe noise impact is projected at 50 residences along the east side of the Niles

Subdivision between Niles Junction and Nursery Avenue. These noise impacts are because of the

increase in freight traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train horn noise at the nearby grade

crossings.

Niles Junction to Nursery Avenue (Niles): Moderate noise impact is projected at 28

residences, and severe noise impact is projected at 36 residences along the west side of the Niles

Subdivision between Niles Junction and Nursery Avenue. Moderate noise impact is also

projected at California Nursery Historical Park, and severe noise impact is projected at Niles

Discovery Church. These noise impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic, proximity of

the tracks, and the train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.

Nursery Avenue to Silver Street (Niles): Moderate noise impact is projected at 37 residences,

and severe noise impact is projected at 57 residences along the east side of the Niles Subdivision

between Nursery Avenue and Silver Street. These noise impacts are because of the increase in

freight traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.

Nursery Avenue to Silver Street (Niles): Moderate noise impact is projected at 39 residences,

and severe noise impact is projected at 46 residences along the west side of the Niles

Subdivision between Nursery Avenue and Silver Street. Moderate noise impact is also projected

at Wat Buddnahusorn Temple. These noise impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic,

proximity of the tracks, and the train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.

Silver Street to Decoto Road (Union City): Severe noise impact is projected at 15 residences

along the east side of the Niles Subdivision between Silver Street and Decoto Road. These noise

impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train horn

noise at the nearby grade crossings.

Silver Street to Decoto Road (Union City): Moderate noise impact is projected at 164

residences, and severe noise impact is projected at 148 residences along the west side of the

Niles Subdivision between Silver Street and Decoto Road. These noise impacts are because of

the increase in freight traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train horn noise at the nearby

grade crossings.

Decoto Road to Kathy Court (Union City): Moderate noise impact is projected at 108


Subdivision between Decoto Road and Kathy Court. Severe noise impact is also projected at Hill

View Baptist Church and Purple Lotus University. These noise impacts are because of the


crossings.



Niles Subdivision between Decoto Road and Kathy Court. These noise impacts are because of the




May 2017 ICF 00458.15


crossings.

Kathy Court to Industrial Parkway (Hayward): Moderate noise impact is projected at 11


Subdivision between Kathy Court and Industrial Parkway. These noise impacts are because of

the increase in freight traffic and proximity of the tracks.

Industrial Parkway to Tennyson Road (Hayward): Moderate noise impact is projected at 44


Subdivision between Industrial Parkway and Tennyson Road. These noise impacts are because

of the increase in freight traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train horn noise at the nearby

grade crossings.





grade crossings.

Tennyson Road to Jackson Street (Hayward): Moderate noise impact is projected at 66


Subdivision between Tennyson Road and Jackson Street. Moderate noise impact is also project

at Cesar Chavez Middle School. These noise impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic,




Subdivision between Tennyson Road and Jackson Street. These noise impacts are because of the


crossings.

Jackson Street to A Street (Hayward): Severe noise impact is projected at 139 residences

along the east side of the Niles Subdivision between Jackson Street and A Street. These noise

impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic and proximity of the tracks.

Jackson Street to A Street (Hayward): Moderate noise impact is projected at 23 residences,


Subdivision between Jackson Street and A Street. These noise impacts are because of the

increase in freight traffic and proximity of the tracks.

A Street to Blossom Way (San Lorenzo): Moderate noise impact is projected at 22 residences,


between A Street and Blossom Way. These noise impacts are because of the increase in freight

traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.



Subdivision between A Street and Blossom Way. These noise impacts are because of the increase

in freight traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.

Blossom Way to Paseo Grande (San Lorenzo): Moderate noise impact is projected at 10





May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Subdivision between Blossom Way and Paseo Grande. These noise impacts are because of the


crossings.





crossings.

Paseo Grande to Hesperian Boulevard (San Lorenzo): Moderate noise impact is projected at

59 residences, and severe noise impact is projected at 68 residences along the east side of the

Niles Subdivision between Paseo Grande and Hesperian Boulevard. These noise impacts are

because of the increase in freight traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train horn noise at the

nearby grade crossings.


29 residences, and severe noise impact is projected at 33 residences along the west side of the

Niles Subdivision between Paseo Grande and Hesperian Boulevard. Moderate noise impact is

also project at Pioneer Memorial Cemetery of San Lorenzo. These noise impacts are because of


grade crossings.

Hesperian Boulevard to Aladdin Avenue (San Leandro): Moderate noise impact is projected

at 22 residences, and severe noise impact is projected at 98 residences along the east side of the

Niles Subdivision between Hesperian Boulevard and Aladdin Avenue. These noise impacts are




at 188 residences, and severe noise impact is projected at 56 residences along the west side of

the Niles Subdivision between Hesperian Boulevard and Aladdin Avenue. These noise impacts

are because of the increase in freight traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train horn noise at

the nearby grade crossings.

Aladdin Avenue to Davis Street (San Leandro): Moderate noise impact is projected at four

residences along the east side of the Niles Subdivision between Aladdin Avenue and Davis

Street. These noise impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic and the train horn noise


Aladdin Avenue to Davis Street (San Leandro): Moderate noise impact is projected at 30


Subdivision between Aladdin Avenue and Davis Street. These noise impacts are because of the


crossings.

Davis Street to Moorpark Street (San Leandro): Moderate noise impact is projected at 2


Subdivision between Davis Street and Moorpark Street. These noise impacts are because of the

increase in freight traffic and the train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15



Niles Subdivision between Davis Street and Moorpark Street. These noise impacts are because of


grade crossings.

Moorpark Street to Elmhurst Junction (Oakland): Moderate noise impact is projected at 26

residences along the east side of the Niles Subdivision between Moorpark Street and Elmhurst

Junction. These noise impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic and the train horn




Subdivision between Moorpark Street and Elmhurst Junction. Severe noise impact is also

projected at the SUM Bible College and Theological Seminary. These noise impacts are because


grade crossings.



severe noise impacts on residential and institutional receptors in association with Alternative CNS-

1c at the following locations due to the shifting of freight from the Coast Subdivision to the Oakland

Subdivision between Niles Junction and Industrial Parkway:

Niles Junction to Barcelona Drive (Fremont): Severe noise impact is projected at 6 residences

along the east side of the Oakland Subdivision between Niles Junction and Barcelona Drive.

These noise impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic and proximity of the tracks.

Barcelona Drive to Silver Street (Fremont): Moderate noise impact is projected at 11

residences, and severe noise impact is projected at 53 residences along the east side of the

Oakland Subdivision between Barcelona Drive and Silver Street. These noise impacts are

because of the increase in freight traffic and proximity of the tracks.

Silver Street to Decoto Road (Union City): Moderate noise impact is projected at 1 residence,

and severe noise impact is projected at 169 residences along the east side of the Oakland

Subdivision between Silver Street and Decoto Road. These noise impacts are because of the


crossings.

Silver Street to Decoto Road (Union City): Moderate noise impact is projected at 196

residence along the west side of the Oakland Subdivision between Silver Street and Decoto

Road. These noise impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic and proximity of the

tracks.

Decoto Road to Kathy Court (Union City): Moderate noise impact is projected at 8 residences

along the east side of the Oakland Subdivision between Decoto Road and Kathy Court. These

noise impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train

horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.






May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Oakland Subdivision between Decoto Road and Kathy Court. These noise impacts are because of


grade crossings.

The following impacts along the Niles Subdivision east of Industrial Parkway for Alternative CNS-

1c are the same as Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b:





grade crossings.





grade crossings.



Subdivision between Tennyson Road and Jackson Street. Moderate noise impact is also project

at Cesar Chavez Middle School. These noise impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic,




Subdivision between Tennyson Road and Jackson Street. These noise impacts are because of the


crossings.

Jackson Street to A Street (Hayward): Severe noise impact is projected at 139 residences

along the east side of the Niles Subdivision between Jackson Street and A Street. These noise

impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic and proximity of the tracks.

Jackson Street to A Street (Hayward): Moderate noise impact is projected at 23 residences,


Subdivision between Jackson Street and A Street. These noise impacts are because of the

increase in freight traffic and proximity of the tracks.



between A Street and Blossom Way. These noise impacts are because of the increase in freight

traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.



Subdivision between A Street and Blossom Way. These noise impacts are because of the increase

in freight traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.







May 2017 ICF 00458.15


crossings.





crossings.


59 residences, and severe noise impact is projected at 68 residences along the east side of the

Niles Subdivision between Paseo Grande and Hesperian Boulevard. These noise impacts are




29 residences, and severe noise impact is projected at 33 residences along the west side of the

Niles Subdivision between Paseo Grande and Hesperian Boulevard. Moderate noise impact is

also project at Pioneer Memorial Cemetery of San Lorenzo. These noise impacts are because of


grade crossings.


at 22 residences, and severe noise impact is projected at 98 residences along the east side of the

Niles Subdivision between Hesperian Boulevard and Aladdin Avenue. These noise impacts are




at 188 residences, and severe noise impact is projected at 56 residences along the west side of

the Niles Subdivision between Hesperian Boulevard and Aladdin Avenue. These noise impacts

are because of the increase in freight traffic, proximity of the tracks, and the train horn noise at


Aladdin Avenue to Davis Street (San Leandro): Moderate noise impact is projected at four

residences along the east side of the Niles Subdivision between Aladdin Avenue and Davis

Street. These noise impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic and the train horn noise


Aladdin Avenue to Davis Street (San Leandro): Moderate noise impact is projected at 30


Subdivision between Aladdin Avenue and Davis Street. These noise impacts are because of the


crossings.



Subdivision between Davis Street and Moorpark Street. These noise impacts are because of the

increase in freight traffic and the train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.






May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Niles Subdivision between Davis Street and Moorpark Street. These noise impacts are because of


grade crossings.


residences along the north side of the Niles Subdivision between Moorpark Street and Elmhurst

Junction. These noise impacts are because of the increase in freight traffic and the train horn




Subdivision between Moorpark Street and Elmhurst Junction. Severe noise impact is also

projected at the SUM Bible College and Theological Seminary. These noise impacts are because


grade crossings.

Tri-Valley

As presented in Tables 4.12 28 and 4.12 29 and shown on Figures 4.12 10 and 4.12 11, there are

moderate noise impacts, but no severe noise impacts, to residential receptors (and no moderate or

severe impacts on institutional receptors) in association with the near-term increase in ACE

passenger train service at the following locations.

Bernal Avenue to Del Valle Parkway (Pleasanton): Moderate noise impact is projected at one

single-family residence on the northbound side of the alignment between Bernal Avenue and

Del Valle Parkway. This impact is because of the proximity to the alignment and train horn noise

at the nearby grade crossing.

Bernal Avenue to Del Valle Parkway (Pleasanton): Moderate noise impact is projected at two

single-family residences on the southbound side of the alignment between Bernal Avenue and

Del Valle. These impacts are because of the proximity to the alignment and train horn noise at


North Murrieta Boulevard to North P Street (Livermore): Moderate noise impact is

projected at one single-family residence on the southbound side of the alignment between

North Murrieta Boulevard and North P Street. This impact is because of the proximity of the

alignment.

North P Street to Junction Avenue (Livermore): Moderate noise impact is projected at 19

single and multifamily residences on the southbound side of the alignment between

North P Street and Junction Avenue. These impacts are because of the proximity of the

alignment and train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.

Junction Avenue to North Mines Road (Livermore): Moderate noise impact is projected at

seven single-family residences on the northbound side of the alignment between Junction

Avenue and North Mines Road. These impacts are because of the proximity to the alignment.

Altamont

As presented in Table 4.12-30, there are no moderate or severe noise impacts on residential

receptors in association with the near-term increase in ACE passenger train service. There are no

institutional sensitive receivers in the Altamont segment.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Tracy to Lathrop

As presented in Table 4.12-31 and shown on Figure 4.12-17, there are moderate noise impacts (but

no severe noise impacts) to residential receptors (there are no institutional receptors) in association

with Alternative TL-1 (which would route increased train service along the existing ACE

alignment) at the following locations.

I-580 to Corral Hollow Road (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at one single-family

residence along the southbound side of Alternative TL-1 from I-580 to Corral Hollow Road.

This impact is related to the existing low noise levels.

Corral Hollow Road to Tracy Boulevard (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at 17

single-family residences on the southbound side of Alternative TL-1 between Corral Hollow

Road and Tracy Boulevard. These impacts are related to train horn noise at the nearby grade

crossing.

Tracy Boulevard to South MacArthur Drive (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at

two single-family residences on the northbound side of Alternative TL-1 between Tracy

Boulevard and South MacArthur Drive. These impacts are related to train horn noise at the

nearby grade crossing.


one single-family residence on the southbound side of Alternative TL-1 between Tracy

Boulevard and South MacArthur Drive. This impact is because of the proximity of the alignment

and train horn noise at the nearby grade crossing.

South MacArthur Drive to North Chrisman Road (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected

at six single-family residences on the southbound side of Alternative TL-1 between

South MacArthur Drive and North Chrisman Road. These impacts are because of the proximity

of the alignment and train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.

SR 120 to West Yosemite Avenue (Manteca): Moderate noise impact is projected at three

single-family residences on the southbound side of Alternative TL-1 between SR 120 and West

Yosemite Avenue. These impacts are because of the proximity of the alignment and train horn

noise at the nearby grade crossing.



receptors) in association with Alternative TL-2a (which would route increased train service along

the Tracy Subdivision through downtown Tracy and use the Midway Crossover) at the following

locations.

I-580 to S Lammers Road (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at two single-family

residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-2a between I-580 and S Lammers

Road. These impacts are related to the low noise levels in the area.

S Lammers Road to Corral Hollow Road (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at six

single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-2a between S Lammers

Road and Corral Hollow Road. These impacts are related to horn noise from trains approaching

the nearby grade crossing.


single-family residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-2a between Corral




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Hollow Road and Tracy Boulevard. These impacts are related to the horn noise from trains

approaching the nearby grade crossing.


single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-2a between Corral

Hollow Road and Tracy Boulevard. These impacts are related to horn noise from trains


Tracy Boulevard to North Central Avenue (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at 33

single and multifamily residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-2a between

Tracy Boulevard and North Central Avenue. These impacts are related to horn noise from trains



single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-2a between Tracy

Boulevard and North Central Avenue. These impacts are related to horn noise from trains


North Central Avenue to MacArthur Drive (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at 72

single- and multifamily residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-2a between

North Central Avenue and MacArthur Drive. These impacts are because of the proximity to the

alignment and horn noise from trains approaching the grade crossing.

Banta: Moderate noise impact is projected at two residences, and severe noise impact is

projected at two residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-2a in Banta. These

impacts are related to horn noise from trains approaching the grade crossings.

Banta: Moderate noise impact is projected at six residences, and severe noise impact is

projected at one residence along the southbound side of Alternative TL-2a in Banta. These




receptors) in association with Alternative TL-2b (which would route increased train service along

the Tracy Subdivision through downtown Tracy and use the Lammers Crossover) at the following

locations.

Lammers Connector (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at one single-family

residence along the southbound side of Alternative TL-2b along the Lammers Connector. This

impact is related to the existing low noise levels.


single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-2b between S Lammers




single-family residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-2b between Corral




single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-2b between Corral




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




single and multifamily residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-2b between




single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-2b between Tracy




single- and multifamily residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-2b between




projected at two residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-2b in Banta. These



projected at one residence along the southbound side of Alternative TL-2b in Banta. These




receptors) in association with Alternative TL-3 (which would route increased train service along

the Tracy Subdivision east of Tracy and then use the Lyoth-Banta Crossover to connect with the

Oakland Subdivision heading westward through Tracy) at the following locations.

I-580 to Corral Hollow Road (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at one single-family

residence along the southbound side of Alternative TL-3 from I-580 to Corral Hollow Road.

This impact is related to the existing low noise levels.


single-family residences on the southbound side of Alternative TL-3 between Corral Hollow

Road and Tracy Boulevard. These impacts are related to train horn noise at the nearby grade

crossing.


two single-family residences on the northbound side of Alternative TL-3 between Tracy

Boulevard and South MacArthur Drive. These impacts are related to train horn noise at the

nearby grade crossing.


one single-family residence on the southbound side of Alternative TL-3 between Tracy

Boulevard and South MacArthur Drive. This impact is because of the proximity of the alignment

and train horn noise at the nearby grade crossing.

South MacArthur Drive to North Chrisman Road (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected

at six single-family residences on the southbound side of Alternative TL-3 between




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

South MacArthur Drive and North Chrisman Road. These impacts are because of the proximity

of the alignment and train horn noise at the nearby grade crossings.

Lyoth-Banta Connector (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at two residences, and

severe noise impact is projected at one residence on the northbound side of Alternative TL-3

along the Lyoth-Banta Connector. These impacts are related to the existing low noise levels and

horn noise from trains approaching the nearby grade crossings.



receptors) in association with Alternative TL-4a (which would route increased train service using

the SR 120 Crossover then along the Tracy Subdivision through downtown Tracy and then use the

Midway Crossover) at the following locations.

I-580 to S Lammers Road (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at two single-family

residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-4a between I-580 and S Lammers

Road. These impacts are related to the low noise levels in the area.


single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-4a between S Lammers




single-family residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-4a between Corral




single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-4a between Corral




single- and multifamily residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-4a between




single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-4a between Tracy




single and multifamily residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-4a between




projected at two residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-4a in Banta. These





May 2017 ICF 00458.15


projected at one residence along the southbound side of Alternative TL-4a in Banta. These


SR 120 to West Yosemite Avenue (Manteca): Moderate noise impact is projected at four

single-family residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-4a between SR 120 and

West Yosemite Avenue. These impacts are related to horn noise from trains approaching the




receptors) in association with Alternative TL-4b (which would route increased train service using

the SR 120 Crossover then along the Tracy Subdivision through downtown Tracy and then use the

Lammers Crossover) at the following locations.

Lammers Connector (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at one single-family

residence along the southbound side of Alternative TL-4b along the Lammers Connector. This

impact is related to the existing low noise levels.


single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-4b between S Lammers




single-family residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-4b between Corral




single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-4b between Corral




single- and multifamily residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-4b between




single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-4b between Tracy




single- and multifamily residences along the southbound side of Alternative TL-4b between




projected at two residences along the northbound side of Alternative TL-4bin Banta. These





May 2017 ICF 00458.15


projected at one residence along the southbound side of Alternative TL-4b in Banta. These


SR 120 to West Yosemite Avenue (Tracy): Moderate noise impact is projected at four single-

family residences along the northbound side of the alignment between SR 120 and

West Yosemite Avenue. These impacts are related to horn noise from trains approaching the


Lathrop to Stockton


residential or institutional receptors in association with increased ACE passenger service.

Manteca to Modesto

AAs presented in Tables 4.12-44 and 4.12-45, there are moderate noise impacts, but no severe noise

impacts, to residential receptors (and no moderate or severe impacts on institutional receptors) in

association with introduction of new passenger rail service from Manteca to Modesto at the

following locations.

South Airport Way to West Louise Avenue (Manteca): Moderate noise impact is projected at

18 single-family residences along the northbound side of the alignment between South Airport

Way and West Louise Avenue. These impacts are because of the proximity of the alignment and

horn noise from trains approaching the nearby grade crossing.

West Louise Avenue to North Union Road (Manteca): Moderate noise impact is projected at

12 single-family residences along the northbound side of the alignment between West Louise

Avenue and North Union Road. These impacts are related to horn noise from trains approaching


North Union Road to West Yosemite Avenue (Manteca): Moderate noise impact is projected

at 10 single and multifamily residences along the northbound side of the alignment between

North Union Road and West Yosemite Avenue. These impacts are because of the proximity of the

alignment and horn noise from trains approaching the nearby grade crossing.



There are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of Alternatives SJF-1; TV-1; TV-2; A-1; West Tracy

Stations A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1, and B-2; Existing Tracy Station; Downtown Tracy Station;

River Islands Station; Relocated Lathrop/Manteca Station; Existing Lathrop/Manteca Station;

and LS-1 as thus noise-related impacts with these alternatives would be less than significant.

Near-term operations would result in a total of 4,033 moderate and 3,963 severe noise impacts

because of the implementation of near-term improvements, increased passenger service, the

combination of near-term improvements and increased passenger service, and relocated freight

service. For the near-term improvements and associated increase in passenger traffic, all the severe

impacts are at locations where train horns are sounded at grade crossings. Because near-term

operations would cause an increase in ambient noise levels that exceed the FTA moderate or severe

impact criteria, this is considered a significant impact.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15


There are a number of different methods to reduce the noise impacts of cumulative trains:

Wayside horns: Train horn noise can be reduced through use of a wayside horn, which is an

automatically triggered horn located at the at-grade crossing itself that sounds upon approach of

a train. Because the horns are located at the crossing itself, the area of effect is smaller than the

area of effect of actual train horns; but sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the at-

grade crossing could still be affected by horn noise. Wayside horns are included as one option in

Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1 described below.

Building sound insulation: Another method of reducing the impact of train horn noise is building

sound insulation. Sound insulation of residences and institutional buildings improve the

outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction. Although this approach has no effect on noise in exterior

areas, it is a feasible method for sites where noise barriers are not feasible or desirable, for

buildings where indoor sensitivity is of most concern, or where the horn noise dominates the

noise environment. Improvements in building sound insulation often can be achieved by adding

an extra layer of glazing to the windows and by sealing any holes in exterior surfaces that act as

sound leaks. Building sound insulation is included as one option in Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1

described below.

Quiet zones: FRA has established a process by which a local jurisdiction can designate a specific

area containing at-grade crossings as a “quiet zone,” provided that certain supplemental safety

measures (SSM) are used in place of the locomotive horn to provide an equivalent level of safety

at the at-grade crossing (Federal Transit Administration 2006).

The SSMs commonly used for quiet zones include four-quadrant gates, gates with medians

or channelization devices, one-way street with gates, and street closure. By adopting an

approved SSM at each of the impacted at-grade crossings, a quiet zone at least 0.5 mile long

can be established.

Only with local implementation of the quiet zone can ACE, freight operators, and other

tenant railroad operations be relieved of the requirement to sound their horns when

crossing at-grade crossings. However, following implementation of a quiet zone, if any

unsafe conditions were present at the time of train passage (such as a vehicle going around

the gates or pedestrians in the crossing), train operators would still have the discretion to

sound train horns. Although the quiet zone regulations are silent on the issue of liability,

local jurisdictions may perceive that the implementation of a quiet zone includes acceptance

of potential liability in the event of related accidents. It is possible that jurisdictions may not

wish to risk the potential liability associated with implementing a quiet zone and decline to

do so. In such a case, ACE, freight operators, and other rail operators would continue to use

train horns as a safety device in compliance with FRA requirements.

Where quiet zones are implemented and accepted by local jurisdictions, noise levels related

to ACE near-term or longer-term improvements may be reduced to a less-than-significant

level at some (but not necessarily all) affected locations.

Quiet zones are included as one option in Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1 described below.

Noise Barriers: Noise barriers are not considered a feasible mitigation to address horn noise

because train horns are elevated; thus, noise barriers would have to be as high as or higher than

the locomotives themselves to be effective at shielding train horn noise. Along the ACEforward




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

corridor, such high walls likely would not be acceptable to local communities. Noise barriers

cannot be placed at the at-grade crossing which also reduces their effectiveness for horn noise

reduction. While lower noise barriers would help to reduce engine and wheel noise for adjacent

receptors, lower noise barriers are not considered cost-effective because they would be only

partially effective at addressing train noise and would not address train horn noise, which is the

dominant concern.

Grade Separation: While grade separations are a technically feasible way to avoid the need for

train horn use, it is a highly expensive mitigation strategy. SJRRC has supported prior grade

separation efforts. SJRRC supports future efforts at grade separation where acceptable to local

communities and where local, state, and federal funding can be obtained to fund these

improvements. Grade separations can cost approximately $50 million to $100 million per

crossing (and sometime more), grade separating all existing at-grade crossings in areas of

significant noise impacts would be cost-prohibitive. SJRRC does not have a dedicated funding

source for the near-term or longer-term improvements. Thus, SJRRC cannot commit to a

comprehensive program of grade separations at this time. However, as described in Mitigation

Measure NOI-2.1, SJRRC will work with local jurisdictions, transportation funding agencies, and

state and federal agencies to support grade separations over time as funding becomes available.

While the recommended mitigation below, where feasible to implement, would help to reduce noise,

it will take time to implement it and it may not be feasible to reduce all noise impacts on a less-than-

significant level; thus, this impact is disclosed as significant and unavoidable.

As to secondary environmental impacts of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1, the environmental effects of

the different mitigation options would vary. Wayside horns and building sound insulation would

have limited to no secondary environmental impacts. Quiet zone improvements would require

additional construction, but the likely environmental impacts of such construction are limited given

the limited footprint of four-quadrant gates, active warning systems, medians, and street work. In

general, construction impacts for quiet zone improvements would be similar to the impacts

disclosed for improvements construction, would occur in previously developed and disturbed areas,

and would be temporary in nature. The applicable improvements mitigation described for

construction impacts in this EIR, where relevant, would also be applied to quiet zone improvements.

As to grade separations, the design and feasibility of a select number of future grade separations are

unknown and unstudied at this time; thus, the specific environmental impacts cannot be identified.

While they are statutorily exempt from CEQA review, grade separations may nevertheless have

substantial environmental impacts depending on their design and location, and their construction

can be highly disruptive. Therefore, as a conservative assumption, their secondary environmental

impacts are assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

SJRRC will work with other parties when implementing this measure to apply the relevant

construction mitigation measures identified in this EIR to these the implementation of future noise

mitigation improvements. SJRRC is only responsible for that portion of the cumulative increases

caused by the improvements. Other sources of cumulative increases including high-speed rail, other

passenger rail and freight services as well as non-rail sources near the ACEforward corridor would

also bear responsibility for cumulative noise increases.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measure would apply to all near-term improvements (except Alternatives

SJF-1; TV-1; TV-2; A-1; West Tracy Stations A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1, and B-2; Existing Tracy

Station; Downtown Tracy Station; River Islands Station; Relocated Lathrop/Manteca Station;

Existing Lathrop/Manteca Station; and LS-1) for noise impacts.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1: Implement a phased program to reduce train noise along the

ACE corridor as necessary to address noise increases over Federal Transit

Administration’s severe impact thresholds

SJRRC will coordinate with other rail operators, local jurisdictions, transportation funding

agencies, and state and federal agencies, to implement incremental noise-reduction measures at

the locations of severe cumulative noise impacts as funding becomes available, where measures

are acceptable to the local community, and where measures are determined feasible. This

mitigation applies to the locations where ACEforward would substantially contribute to

cumulative noise impacts. Where ACEforward does not contribute to cumulative noise impacts,

then SJRRC is not responsible to participate in mitigation, even if the cumulative noise impacts

are severe.

SJRRC will work with local, state, and federal partners to establish priorities for noise reduction

measure to be implemented as funding becomes available. SJRRC will also work with other

willing rail operators to seek additional funding from other parties that contribute to cumulative

train noise levels.

This program is expected to be implemented over a period of decades. Improvements will be

phased as needed to address changes in rail service over time and the associated rail noise over

thresholds. If funding participation by other parties is limited, SJRRC may not be able to fund all

potential noise mitigation on its own, particularly where the mitigation to address cumulative

noise impacts far exceeds SJRRC’s fair-share of the impact.

Wayside horns and Residential Building Sound Insulation

SJRRC, in cooperation with the other parties noted above, will evaluate the potential to reduce

noise impacts through the installation of wayside horns and building sound insulation

improvements at residences projected to have a sound increase greater than the FTA moderate

impact criteria. Building sound insulation methods may include extra wall insulation, window

glazing and sealing of exterior surfaces.

During final design, a technical study will be completed to evaluate the effectiveness of reducing

impacts on less than the FTA moderate impact threshold through these methods. If the study

determines it feasible to reduce the impact on less than the threshold at an affected sensitive

noise receptor, then no additional mitigation at that location will be required. Building sound

insulation measures will only be installed to the extent necessary to meet the impact threshold

at the receptor location and will only be installed if building owners are willing to accept such

measures.

Quiet Zones

The lead agency for a quiet zone designation is the local jurisdiction (typically the city or county)

responsible for traffic control and law enforcement on the roads at the at-grade crossings.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

SJRRC, in cooperation with the other parties noted above, and the affected local jurisdictions will

implement a phased program considering the potential establishment of quiet zones along the

ACE corridor at all locations where train noise is predicted to exceed FTA severe impact

thresholds. SJRRC will work closely with local jurisdictions to prepare the engineering studies

and coordination agreements to design, construct, and enforce potential quiet zones.

Options for establishing quiet zones could include implementation of the following FRA pre-

approved supplemental safety measures (SSMs).

Four-quadrant gate system. This measure involves the installation of at least one gate for

each direction of traffic to fully block vehicles from entering the crossing.

Gates with medians or channelization devices. This measure keeps traffic in the proper

travel lanes as it approaches the crossing, thus denying the driver the option of

circumventing the gates by travelling in the opposite lane.

One-way street with gates. This measure consists of one-way streets with gates installed so

that all approaching travel lanes are completely blocked. This option may not be feasible or

acceptable to local jurisdictions at all locations.

Road closure. This measure consists of closing the road to through travel at the at-grade

crossing. This option may not be feasible or acceptable to local jurisdictions at all locations.

In addition to these pre-approved SSMs, FRA also identifies a range of other measures that may

be used to establish a quiet zone. These measures could be modified SSMs or non-engineering

measures that might involve law enforcement or public awareness programs. Such alternative

safety measures must be approved by FRA based on the prerequisite that they provide an

equivalent level of safety as the sounding of train horns.

Wayside horns can also be utilized as part of a quiet zone. While not avoiding the sounding of a

horn, wayside horns affect a smaller area than train-mounted horn. Wayside horns can be used

when the other measures above are not adequate to avoid the use of a horn.

The lead agency for a quiet zone designation is the local public authority which is the only

authority that can implement a quiet zone. SJRRC or the other rail operators cannot, on their

own, designate the quiet zone. However, only with the implementation of the quiet zone can

SJRRC, other tenant railroads, and freight operators be relieved of the requirement to sound

their horns when crossing at-grade crossings. Thus, if a local city does not accept the quiet zone,

then even if the required SSMs are present, SJRRC, freight and other rail operators would

continue to use train horns as a safety device in compliance with FRA requirements.

Grade Separations

Grade separations are not being considered for the mitigation of severe noise impacts due to the

relatively higher cost and the existence of other feasible mitigation measures.

Noise Barriers

For noise barriers to be effective, these barriers are constructed to intercept the line of sight

between a noise source and receptors. Noise barriers can be constructed from concrete, brick or

masonry blocks, metals, wood, rubber, or transparent panels. The height of each noise barrier

would depend on engineering design on the conditions at each specific location, but typical

noise barriers are 8 to 10 feet in height.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Recommended Noise Reduction Methods

The following are recommendations for methods to reduce severe noise impacts along the

ACEforward alignment, the Niles Subdivision between Niles Junction and Industrial Parkway in

Oakland (if Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, or CNS-2b is advanced), the Niles Subdivision

between Industrial Parkway and Elmhurst Junction in Oakland (if Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1c,

CNS-2a, or CNS-2b is advanced), and the Oakland Subdivision between Niles Junction and

Industrial Parkway (if Alternative CNS-1c is advanced). As noted above, these

recommendations are subject to funding limitations and the actual improvements will be

determined in consultation with local cities and in consideration of public input received. Detail

on the agreed upon improvements will be provided in the final EIR.

Centerville/Niles/Sunol, east of Niles Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1b, CNS-1c, CNS-

2a, and CNS-2b)

Second Street to Carver Lane (Sunol): Creating a quiet zone through Sunol would

mitigate all impacts in this section.

Niles Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Elmhurst Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a, part of

CNS-1c [north of Industrial Parkway], CNS-2a, and CNS-2b)

Niles Junction to Nursery Avenue (Niles): A combination of noise barriers and quiet

zones would be able to mitigate the severe impacts in this section.

Nursery Avenue to Silver Street (Niles): A combination of noise barriers and quiet zones

would be able to mitigate the severe impacts in this section.

Silver Street to Decoto Road (Union City): Noise barriers and a quiet zone would be able

to mitigate the severe impacts in this section.

Decoto Road to Kathy Court (Union City): A combination of noise barriers, quiet zones,

and sound insulation would be able to mitigate the severe impacts in this section.

Kathy Court to Industrial Parkway (Hayward): Noise barriers would mitigate the severe

impacts in this section.

Industrial Parkway to Tennyson Road (Hayward): A combination of noise barriers, quiet

zones, and sound insulation would be able to mitigate the severe impacts in this section.

Tennyson Road to Jackson Street (Hayward): A combination of noise barriers, quiet

zones and sound insulation would be able to mitigate the severe impacts in this section.

Jackson Street to A Street (Hayward): A combination of noise barriers and sound

insulation would mitigate the severe impacts in this section.

A Street to Blossom Way (San Lorenzo): A combination of noise barriers, quiet zones,

and sound insulation would mitigate the severe impacts in this section.

Blossom Way to Paseo Grande (San Lorenzo): A combination of noise barriers, quiet

zones, and sound insulation would mitigate the severe impacts in this section.

Paseo Grande to Hesperian Boulevard (San Lorenzo): A combination of noise barriers,

quiet zones, and sound insulation would mitigate the severe impacts in this section.

Hesperian Boulevard to Aladdin Avenue (San Leandro): A combination of noise barriers,

quiet zones, and sound insulation would mitigate the severe impacts in this section.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Aladdin Avenue to Davis Street (San Leandro): A combination of quiet zones and sound


Davis Street to Moorpark Street (San Leandro): A combination of quiet zones, noise

barriers, and sound insulation would mitigate the severe impacts in this section.

Moorpark Street to Elmhurst Junction (Oakland): Quiet zones would mitigate the severe


Oakland Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Industrial Parkway (Alternative CNS-1c)

Niles Junction to Barcelona Drive (Fremont): Noise barriers would mitigate the severe


Barcelona Drive to Silver Street (Fremont): Noise barriers would mitigate the severe


Silver Street to Decoto Road (Union City): Noise barriers would mitigate the severe


Decoto Road to Kathy Court (Union City): A combination of quiet zones and sound


Tracy to Lathrop (Alternatives TL-2a, TL-2b, TL-3, TL-4a, and TL-4b)

Banta: Create quiet zones at the grade crossings through Banta will mitigate all severe

noise impacts for this alternative.

Impact NOI-3 Construction of near-term improvements could expose sensitive receptors to substantial increases in ground-borne vibration levels.


Mitigation Measures NOI-3.1: Implement a construction vibration control plan


Less than significant


Construction activities can be expected to generate vibration levels at 25 feet as high as 94 VdB from

compactors during site work, 87 VdB from bulldozers during rail work, and 104 VdB from impact

pile drivers during structures work. Except for pile drivers, it is unlikely that such equipment will be

used close enough to sensitive structures to have any damage effects, For pile driving, it is

anticipated that the potential for damage effects will be limited to structures located at distances in

the range of 30–75 feet from the operations, depending on the building category.

In terms of vibration annoyance effects or interference with the use of sensitive equipment, the

potential extent of vibration impact from pile driving is expected to be even greater than for damage

effects. Based on FTA methodology, Table 4.12-10provides the approximate distances within which

receivers could experience construction-related vibration annoyance effects. The results of the

analysis indicate that vibration impacts would extend to distances of 230–630 feet from pile driving

operations, depending on vibration sensitivity.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-10. Approximate Screening Distances for Vibration Annoyance Effects from Pile Driving

Land Use Categorya Vibration Criterion Level (VdB)

Approximate Vibration Impact Distance (feet)

Category 1 (Sensitive Buildings) 65 630

Category 2 (Residential Buildings) 72 290

Category 3 (Institutional Buildings) 75 230 a See Table 4.12-6 for land use category descriptions.

VdB = vibration velocity




vibration in excess of FTA thresholds. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from construction

activities would cause only intermittent localized disturbance along the rail corridor. Although

processes such as earth moving with bulldozers or the use of vibratory compaction rollers can

create annoying vibration, there should be only isolated cases where it is necessary to use this type

of equipment in close proximity to residential buildings. It is possible that construction activities

involving pile drivers occurring at the edge of or slightly outside of the current ROW could result in

vibration damage, and damage from construction vibration would be a potentially significant

impact.


With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3.1, vibration impacts would be avoided or

minimized; if building damage occurs due to construction then repairs would be made or

compensation provided. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3.1, impacts resulting

from construction vibration structural damage would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures


vibration impacts.

Mitigation Measure NOI-3.1: Implement construction vibration control plan

A vibration control plan that incorporates, at a minimum, the following best practices into the

construction scope of work and specifications to reduce the impact of temporary construction-

related vibration on nearby noise-sensitive receptors will be prepared and implemented.

Avoid the use of impact pile drivers where possible near vibration-sensitive areas or use

alternative construction methods (e.g., drilled piles) where geological conditions permit.

Avoid vibratory compacting/rolling in close proximity to structures.

Require vibration monitoring during vibration-intensive activities.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Impact NOI-4 Relocated passenger or freight service could result in vibration impacts

Level of Impact Potentially significant (Alternative CNS-2a)

Less than significant (all other near-term alternatives)

Mitigation Measures NOI-4.1: Conduct a detailed design-level vibration analysis and implement vibration reduction measures for identified receptors




The vibration impact assessment for the near-term improvements evaluated four major

components.

1. Near-term improvements. Individual near-term improvements were assessed for their potential

for impact in the vicinity of the specific improvements. There are no vibration impacts

associated with individual near-term improvements.

2. Increased passenger service. For locations with existing train traffic, including freight,

commuter rail and/or Amtrak service, FTA vibration criteria for locations with existing

vibration was used. Because of the high volume of train traffic throughout the corridor and the

very small increase in the number of trains, and because the increased passenger service would

not result in vibration levels greater than existing levels, no vibration impacts are projected at

locations with existing train operations.

3. Near-term improvements plus increased passenger service. In Tracy, the near-term

improvements would relocate the existing passenger service and the increased passenger

service. These relocations were assessed for vibration impacts.

4. Relocated freight service. In Niles Canyon and the Niles Subdivision, some of the near-term

improvements would relocate the freight rail operations onto the Niles Canyon Railroad and/or

would allow for increased freight operations on the Niles Subdivision north of Niles Junction to

and from Oakland.4 For the Niles Subdivision with existing train traffic, including freight,

commuter rail and Amtrak service, FTA vibration criteria for locations with existing vibration

was used. Because of the high volume of train traffic throughout the corridor and the very small

increase in the number of trains, and because the increased freight service would not result in

vibration levels greater than existing levels, no vibration impacts are projected at locations with

existing train operations. In the Niles canyon, the freight relocations were assessed for vibration

impacts.

Table 4.12-11 summarizes the results of the vibration impact assessment for near-term

improvements. The only vibration impacts are in the Centerville/Niles/Sunol segment, where the

relocated freight trains are located close to sensitive receptors.

4 Alternatives that include a connection to the Niles Subdivision at Niles Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a,

and CNS-2b) would result in increased freight north of Niles Junction on the Niles Subdivision and a corresponding decrease in freight activity on the Niles Subdivision through Centerville and the Coast Subdivision between Newark and Oakland.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15


San Jose to Fremont

As noted above, because of the high volume of train traffic throughout the corridor and the very

small increase in the number of trains, and because the increased passenger service would not

result in vibration levels greater than existing levels, no vibration impacts are projected at locations

with existing train operations.


Along the existing UPRR corridor where ACE operates at present, because of the very small increase

in the number of trains, and because the increased passenger service would not result in vibration

levels greater than existing levels, no vibration impacts are projected at locations with existing train

operations.

As presented in Table 4.12-46, the only vibration impacts are for Alternative CNS-2a, where the

relocated freight trains are located very close to sensitive receptors. Figure 4.12-23 shows the

locations of vibration impacts relative to this alternative graphically. Vibration impacts are

projected at two single-family residences along the southbound side of Alternative CNS-2a between

Second Street and Carver Lane in Sunol. The vibration impacts at this location are because of the

proximity of the tracks to the residences. No impacts on institutional receptors would occur along

this segment with Alternative CNS-2a as presented in Table 4.12-47.

As presented in Tables 4.12-48 and 4.12-49, no vibration impacts are identified for Alternative

CNS-2b.


As described, several near-term alternatives (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1c, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b)

would allow for the shift of freight operations from the Coast Subdivision (existing) onto the Niles

Subdivision. As noted above, because of the existing train traffic throughout the corridor and the

limited increase in the number of trains, and because the increased freight service would not result

in vibration levels greater than existing train levels, no vibration impacts are projected at locations

with existing train operations along the Niles Subdivision.


As described, one near-term alternative (Alternative CNS-1c) would allow for the shift of freight

operations from the Coast Subdivision (existing) onto the Oakland Subdivision from Niles Junction

to Industrial Parkway and then onto the Niles Subdivision north of Industrial Parkway to Elmhurst

Junction. As noted above, because of the existing train traffic (including frequent BART service)

throughout the corridor and the limited increase in the number of trains, and because the increased

freight service would not result in vibration levels greater than existing train levels, no vibration

impacts are projected at locations with existing train operations along the Oakland Subdivision

south of Industrial. North of Industrial, the freight would be routed along the Niles Subdivision with

Alternative CNS-1c and impacts would be as disclosed for the Niles Subdivision above.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Tri-Valley

As noted above, because of the very small increase in the number of trains, and because the

increased passenger service would not result in vibration levels greater than existing levels, no

vibration impacts are projected at locations with existing train operations.

Altamont

As noted above, because of the very small increase in the number of trains, and because the



Tracy to Lathrop

Alignment Options

For Alternative TL-1, because of the very small increase in the number of trains, and because the



As presented in Table 4.12-50 through Table 4.12-59, no vibration impacts are identified for

Alternatives TL-2a, TL-2b, TL-3, TL-4a, or TL-4b.

Station Options

There are no vibration impacts related to the station options because the station options would not

change the vibration levels associated with trains (e.g., changes in vibration levels are a result of

alignments and service level, not stations).

Lathrop to Stockton

As noted above, because of the volume of train traffic throughout the corridor and the very small

increase in the number of trains, and because the increased passenger service would not result in


existing train operations.

Manteca to Modesto

As noted above, because of the volume of train traffic throughout the corridor and the very small

increase in the number of trains, and because the increased passenger service would not result in


existing train operations.


Table 4.12-11 provides an overview of the vibration impacts associated with the near-term

improvements and increased passenger service. Table 4.12-46 through Table 4.12-59 provide

information about alternatives for which vibration modelling was conducted concerning vibration

levels, impact thresholds, and numbers of impacts.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-11. Operational Vibration Impacts in the Vicinity of Near-Term Improvements

Near-Term Improvement Alternatives Vibration Impacts

San Jose to Fremont 0

SJF-1 0


CNS-1a, CNS-1b, CNS-1c 0

CNS-2a 2

CNS-2b 0


CNS-1a, CNS-2a, CNS-2b 0


CNS-1c 0

Tri-Valley 0

TV-1 0

TV-2 0

Altamont 0

A-1 0

Tracy to Lathrop—Alignment Options 0

TL-1 0

TL-2a 0

TL-2b 0

TL-3 0

TL-4a 0

TL-4b 0

Tracy to Lathrop—Station Options 0

West Tracy Station A-1 0





West Tracy Station B-1 0

West Tracy Station B-2 0

Existing Tracy Station 0

Downtown Tracy Station 0

Existing Lathrop/Manteca Station 0

Relocated Lathrop/Manteca Station 0

River Islands Station 0

Lathrop to Stockton 0

LS-1 0

Manteca to Modesto 0

MMO-1a 0

MMO-1b 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15



Based on CEQA guidelines, there are two locations with vibration impacts from Alternative CNS-2a

that are considered significant. These impacts are because of the proximity of the new tracks to

sensitive receptors. All other near-term improvements would not result in vibration impacts.


For Alternative CNS-2a, the vibration impacts identified marginally exceed the threshold for

impact. Because of this, a detailed vibration analysis should be conducted during project design to

determine the magnitude of the vibration impacts. In many cases, the number and magnitude of

impacts with a detailed vibration analysis are less than with a general vibration assessment because

of the conservative nature of the general assessment. If vibration impacts are still identified with the

detailed vibration analysis, the results will allow for specification of mitigation measures, such as

ballast mats or resilient tie pads, which would eliminate the impacts.

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measure would apply to Alternative CNS-2a for potential vibration

impacts.

Mitigation Measure NOI-4.1: Conduct a detailed design-level vibration analysis and

implement vibration reduction measures for identified receptors

If Alternative CNS-2a is advanced, the SJRRC will conduct a detailed design-level vibration

analysis to determine the level of vibration impact for the two receptors in Sunol to determine if

they will be exposed to vibration levels above FTA criteria. If the detailed analysis shows that

the receptors will be exposed to levels above FTA criteria, then the SJRRC will implement

vibration reduction measures in areas in close proximity to the two receptors including ballast

mats, resilient tie pads, or other measure to reduce levels to below FTA criteria. This measure

will be implemented prior to introducing any new service on the NCRY.

4.12.4.4 Longer-Term Improvements Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact NOI-5 Construction of longer-term improvements could expose sensitive receptors to substantial increases in noise levels.


Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1: Implement a construction noise control plan


Significant and unavoidable




May 2017 ICF 00458.15


Construction for the various longer-term improvements would include three basic activities: (1) site

work, (2) rail work and (3) structures work. Based on construction of similar near-term

improvements, site work is expected to occur over periods of 1–21 months, rail work is expected to

occur over periods of 1–28 months, and structures work is expected to occur over periods of 6–26

months. Generally, construction of a similar near-term improvement could last 89 to 42 months.

Because most longer-term improvements are located on an active freight and passenger rail line,

construction work could occur during the nighttime. The local noise ordinances for the cities and

counties along the ACEforward corridor generally limit construction noise to particular time periods

during weekday, weekend, and holiday daytime hours. Nighttime construction work is generally

prohibited, but some jurisdictions allow for a variance.

Table 4.12-8 summarizes the estimated construction noise levels and residential noise impact

screening distances for each of the planned construction activities. The noise estimates are based on

scenarios for the construction activities, using FTA methodology described in Section 4.12.4.1, and

FTA criteria described in Section 4.12.4.2. However, to be conservative, the screening distance

estimates did not assume any topography or ground effects. The results of the analysis indicate that

noise impacts would be limited to residences within 135 to 270 feet from the construction site,

depending on the activity. The potential for noise impact would be greatest during structures work

at locations where pile driving is required for bridge construction.




noise exposure in excess of the FTA thresholds. As shown in Table 4.12-8, the operation of certain

construction equipment and construction activities could generate noise exposure in excess of FTA

thresholds. Nighttime construction near residential uses would have larger impacts than daytime

construction would have and would result in a potentially significant impact.


Although the measures specified in Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1 would generally reduce the

construction noise levels, the measures would not necessarily guarantee that sensitive residential

receptors would not be exposed to noise levels exceeding the 80 dBA limit during the day or the 70

dBA limit at night. In specific, given the active railroad, it is probable that construction near some

residential areas will have to be conducted at night to avoid disruption of freight and passenger rail

operations and to complete construction on schedule. Furthermore, a temporary sound wall may be

effective in certain locations, but in many cases the nature of the construction work makes use of

such sound walls infeasible.

Construction-related noise would be short-term and would cease after the construction is

completed. Still, even with mitigation, the impact of temporary construction-related noise on nearby

noise sensitive receptors would remain a significant and unavoidable impact, in particular where

heavy construction would occur immediately adjacent to residences and where construction would

occur at night near residences.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measure would apply to all longer-term improvements for construction

noise impacts.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1: Implement a construction noise control plan

Refer to measure description under Impact NOI-1.

Impact NOI-6 Increased passenger service on existing routes, new passenger service on new routes, and relocated freight service could result in severe noise impacts

Level of Impact Potentially significant (all other longer-term improvements)

Less than significant (Alternatives P-SJF-1, P-SJF-2a, P-SJF-2b, P-SJF-2c, P-SJF-2d, P-SJF-3, P-TV-3, P-TV-4, P-TV-5, P-A-1, P-A-2, P-A-3, P-TL-A1, P-TL-A2, P-TL-A3, P-TL-A4, P-TL-A5, P-TL-B1, P-TL-B2, P-TL-ET, P-TL-DT, P-TL-ELM, P-TL-RI, P-TL-RLM, and P-LS-1)

Mitigation Measures NOI-2.1: Implement a phased program to reduce train noise along the ACE corridor as necessary to address noise increases over Federal Transit Administration’s severe impact thresholds


Significant and unavoidable (all longer-term improvements except Alternatives P-SJF-1, P-SJF-2a, P-SJF-2b, P-SJF-2c, P-SJF-2d, P-SJF-3, P-TV-3, P-TV-4, P-TV-5, P-A-1, P-A-2, P-A-3, P-TL-A1, P-TL-A2, P-TL-A3, P-TL-A4, P-TL-A5, P-TL-B1, P-TL-B2, P-TL-ET, P-TL-DT, P-TL-ELM, P-TL-RI, P-TL-RLM, and P-LS-1)


The noise impact assessment for the longer-term improvements evaluated four major components.

1. Longer-term improvements. Individual longer-term improvements were assessed for their

potential for impact in the vicinity of the specific improvements. In most cases, individual

longer-term improvements by themselves do not result in noise impacts.

2. Increased passenger service along existing rail routes. The increase in passenger service

throughout existing rail corridors made possible by the longer-term improvements was

assessed for impact. Longer-term improvements would result in an increase in passenger

service greater than that for near-term improvements; therefore, there are more noise impacts.

3. Longer-term improvements resulting in relocations plus increased passenger service. In Tracy,

the combination of the near-term and longer-term improvements would relocate the existing

passenger service and increase passenger service. These relocations were assessed as new

projects for noise impacts. For longer-term improvements, the increase in passenger service is

much greater than that for near-term improvements; therefore, there are many more noise

impacts.

4. In the Tri-Valley area, longer-term improvements could result in new ACE, BART, or diesel

multiple unit (DMU) service in locations where no rail service currently exists and/or could

result in additional bus connections between ACE and BART.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-12 summarizes the results of the noise impact assessment for longer-term

improvements. The impacts related to either longer-term improvements (Item #1 above) or near-

term and longer-term improvements plus increased passenger service (Item #3 above) are listed in

the rows for specific near-term improvements. The overall impacts related to increased passenger

service (Item #2 above) are listed in the top-level heading for each segment. Item #4 is addressed

separately. Because of the complexity of the Tri-Valley alternatives and their conceptual level of

development at this time, the analysis is qualitative and preliminary and subsequent noise analysis

will need to be done in the subsequent project environmental review.

For locations with only increased passenger service, the FTA increase in noise level criteria were

used to assess impact. At other locations, FTA project noise level criteria were used to assess the

potential for impact. For longer-term improvements, such as the BART connections, where no

detailed operational information is available, a screening assessment, as described in Chapter 4 of

the FTA guidance manual, was conducted. A screening assessment is a conservative approach used

to assess the potential for impacts from projects at a high level, when detailed information is not

available. If no sensitive receivers are located within the screening distances, no impact would be

anticipated.

All of the severe impacts and the majority of the moderate impacts for longer-term improvements

are at locations within 0.25 mile of grade crossings where train horns would be sounded. Most of

these impacts are in the areas as described in Item #3 above, where there are new near-term and

longer-term improvements that relocate the existing service in addition to the increased passenger

service. Table 4.12-60 through 4.12-87 lists the locations of the impacts and Figure 4.12-24 through

4.12-37 show the locations of noise impacts graphically.


Longer-term impact tables referenced in this discussion are provided in 4.12.5.2, Longer-term

Impact Tables.

San Jose to Fremont

In this segment, there are two sources of noise impact: (1) operation of up to 10 roundtrip ACE

passenger trains per day along the existing ACE route (6 additional trains over existing conditions

and 4 more trains than the near-term improvements); and (2) operation of a Tamien layover facility

(Alternative P-SJF-1).

Alternative P-SJF-1 would include additional Tamien layover facility improvements beyond those

included in the near-term improvements. These improvements would occur between the existing

UPRR corridor and SR 87. Based on a screening assessment, there are sensitive receptors near the

facility. However, without specific operational details regarding the facility, a detailed assessment

cannot be conducted. If this improvement is carried forward, a detailed noise assessment will need

to be conducted when operational details are available.

The different alternatives for crossing the Alviso Baylands would not have notable differences in

noise impacts on sensitive receptors as all alternatives would result in the same level of rail traffic in

Alviso and Santa Clara.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Centerville to Union City

In this segment, there would be the potential noise impacts are related to the extension of service

from Centerville to Union City, which would be a new service on a corridor without existing

passenger rail service.

Based on a screening assessment, there is potential for noise impacts for all alternatives in this

segment. However, without specific operational details regarding the service, a detailed assessment

cannot be conducted. If these improvements are carried forward, a detailed noise assessment will

need to be conducted when operational details are available.


There would be some noise impacts in the common portions of this segment because of the

increased passenger service. As presented in Table 4.12-12, Alternative CNS-1 would have the

significantly more noise impacts, with Alternatives CNS-2a and CNS-2b having roughly similar

noise impacts.


The longer-term improvements would not change the potential for freight to use the Niles

Subdivision. However, several of the near-term alternatives would allow for freight to use the Niles

Subdivision north of Niles Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a and CNS-2b) and in the longer-

term there likely would be greater freight operations than in the near-term.

There would be noise impacts for the Niles Subdivision because of the increase in freight traffic

along the existing corridor, as presented in Table 4.12-62. Institutional noise impacts would occur as

well, as presented in Table 4.12-63.

Tri-Valley

In this segment, there are three potential sources of noise impact from longer-term improvements in

this segment: (1) operation of up to 10 roundtrip ACE passenger trains per day along the existing

ACE route (6 additional trains over existing conditions and 4 more trains than the near-term

improvements) (all alternatives); (2) operation of new BART, ACE, or DMU/EMU service between

Greenville Road Station and either Isabel Avenue or Dublin/Pleasanton Stations (Alternatives P-

TV-1a, P-TV-1b, P-TV-1c, P-TV-2a, P-TV-2b, P-TV-2c, and P-BART-1) or operation of new BART

service to downtown Livermore and/or Vasco (Alternatives P-BART-2 and P-BART-3);and (3)

operation of additional bus service to connect ACE to BART (Alternatives P-TV-1d and P-TV-2d).

A quantitative analysis was done of the impact of operation of up to 10 daily roundtrip ACE trains

along the existing ACE route. There would be significant noise impacts for the common portions of

the Tri-Valley segment as presented in Table 4.12-12 and detailed in Tables 4.12-74 and 4.12-75.

The majority of the impacts are at locations near grade crossings where the additional ACE

operations would increase noise levels because of train horns.

Because of the complexity of the potential ACE to BART and BART to ACE alternatives and the

preliminary state of design, a qualitative analysis was completed. Alternatives P-TV-1a, P-TV-1b,

P-TV-1c, P-TV-2a, P-TV-2b, P-TV-2c, P-BART-1, P-BART-2, and P-BART-3 have the potential for

noise impacts based on a screening assessment. The highest potential for impacts would at locations

where the operations or project elements are not in the I-580 median. Within the median, the




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

distance from the alignment to sensitive receivers and the high existing noise levels would make

impacts unlikely. At locations outside the median of I-580, there would be the potential for noise

impacts at locations where the tracks are at grade or elevated. For locations in tunnels such as for

Alternatives P-BART-2 and P-BART-3 in the segment from I-580 to Downtown Livermore, there

would be no potential for noise impacts. Where the alignments are the same between alternatives

(e.g. the alignment down the I-580 median and on approach to Greenville), a qualitative comparison

can be made between the alternatives based on reference noise levels (at 50 feet and 50 mph) for

the different technologies as follows (San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District 2009; Peninsula

Corridor Joint Powers Board 2015):

conventional diesel locomotive—92 dBA (Alternatives P-TV-1a, P-TV-1b, P-TV-2a, P-TV-2b)

DMU—85 dBA [Alternative P-TV-1c (DMU variant) and P-TV-2c (DMU variant)]

EMU—80 dBA [Alternative P-TV-1c (EMU variant) and P-TV-2c (EMU variant)[

BART—80 dBA (Alternative P-BART-1, P-BART-2, and P-BART-3)

For individual passing trains, alternatives diesel locomotive units would be expected to have the

highest noise impact, followed by DMUs, EMUs, and BART. However, the amount of service also

affects the day-night noise levels and the DMU/EMU alternatives and BART alternatives have much

higher levels of service from Greenville along the I-580 corridor than the diesel locomotive

alternatives. Because these alternatives have not been sufficiently designed, a quantitative analysis

of noise impacts would need to be completed during project-level environmental clearance.

Alternatives P-TV-1d and P-TV-2d would be unlikely to have significant impacts, as these

alternatives would involve bus service, and not new trains. However, the operational details needed

to separate out impacts related to different longer-term improvement elements are not currently

available. A detailed noise analysis would need to be completed in the subsequent project

environmental process.

The Connection from Existing Alignment, Connection from Altamont Tunnel, Connection from

Long Tunnel, Facilities with Existing Alignment, and Facilities with Altamont Tunnel or Long

Tunnel would not have any impacts because there are no sensitive receptors located near the

project elements.

Altamont

In this segment, there would be two potential sources of noise impact from longer-term

improvements in this segment: (1) operation of up to 10 roundtrip ACE passenger trains per day

along the existing ACE route (6 additional trains over existing conditions and 4 trains more over

near-term conditions); and (2) train operation along revised routes with the Alternatives P-A-1, P-

A-2, and P-A-3.

There would be no noise impacts in this segment related to the longer-term improvements because

there are no sensitive receptors located near the improvements. However, there would be minimal

impact because of increased service.

Tracy to Lathrop

In this segment, there would be two potential sources of noise impact from longer-term


along the existing ACE route (6 additional trains over existing conditions and 4 more trains over




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

near-term conditions) (near-term Alternative TL-1); and (2) operations of up to 10 roundtrip ACE

passenger trains along the existing ACE route and/or revised routes (as a result of near-term

Alternatives TL-2a, TL-2b, TL-3, TL-4a, and TL-4b).

Alternatives TL-1, TL-2a, TL-2b, TL-3, TL-4a, and TL-4b would all result in noise impacts related

to the increased service in the longer-term. However, because of the new sections of track,

Alternatives TL-2a, TL-2b, TL-4a, and TL-4b would result in much greater numbers of noise

impacts because of the locations of new tracks near sensitive receptors that were not previously

exposed to train noise, as presented in Table 4.12-12 and detailed in Table 4.12-77 through Table

4.12-87.

There are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of station options in the Tracy to Lathrop segment

(expansion of stations proposed as part of Alternatives P-TL-A1, P-TL-A2, P-TL-A3, P-TL-A4, P-

TL-A5, P-TL-B1, P-TL-B2, P-TL-ET, P-TL-DT, P-TL-RI, P-TL-ELM, and P-TL-RLM) and thus no

noise impact would occur.

Lathrop to Stockton

In this segment, the only source of noise impact from longer-term improvements in this segment

would be operation of up to 10 roundtrip ACE passenger trains per day along the existing ACE route

(6 additional trains over existing conditions and 4 more trains over near-term conditions).

There would be a few noise impacts because of the increased service in the Lathrop to Stockton

segment as presented in Table 4.12-12 and detailed in Table 4.12-88.

Manteca to Modesto

In this segment, the only source of noise impact from longer-term improvements in this segment

would be operation of up to 10 roundtrip ACE passenger trains per day along the UPRR route (10

additional trains over existing conditions and 4 more trains over near-term conditions).

There would be some noise impacts for the Manteca to Modesto segment, primarily at the northern

end of the segment, as presented in Table 4.12-12 and detailed in Table 4.12-90.

Modesto to Merced

In this segment, the source of noise impact from longer-term improvements in this segment would

be operation of up to 10 roundtrip ACE passenger trains per day along the existing UPRR route (10

additional trains over existing conditions and 4 more trains over near-term conditions).

There would be some impacts for the common portions of the Modesto to Merced segment.

Alternatives P-MME-1a and P-MME-1b would have the same impact on noise because the only

difference between these alternatives would be whether a station was placed at Livingston or at

Atwater.


Table 4.12-12 provides an overview of the noise impacts associated with the longer-term

improvements and increased passenger service and/or longer-term changes in freight routing due

to near-term improvements in the area between Niles Junction and Elmhurst Junction in Oakland.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-12. Operational Noise Impacts related to Longer-Term Improvements

Longer-Term Improvement Alternatives

Noise Impacts

Moderate Severe

San Jose to Fremonta 0 0

Centerville to Union Citya 0 0

P-UC-1a c

P-UC-1b c

P-UC-2a c

P-UC-2b c


Near-term Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b 1,568 2,600


Near-term Alternative CNS-1c 1,377 2,303

Centerville/Niles/Sunola 17 0

Tri-Valleya 673 17

Tri-Valley – Alignment Options

P-TV-1a c

P-TV-1b c

P-TV-1c c

P-TV-1d c

P-TV-2a c

P-TV-2b c

P-TV-2c c

P-TV-2d c

P-BART-1 c

P-BART-2 c

P-BART-3 c

Tri-Valley—Standard Rail Connection Options

Connection from Existing Alignment d

Connection from Altamont Tunnel d

Connection from Long Tunnel d

Tri-Valley—DMU/EMU Operational Facility Options

Facilities with Existing Alignment d

Facilities with Altamont Tunnel or Long Tunnel d

P-TV-3 d

P-TV-4 d

P-TV-5 d

Altamonta 1 0

P-A-1 d

P-A-2 d

P-A-3 d

Tracy to Lathrop




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Longer-Term Improvement Alternatives

Noise Impacts

Moderate Severe

Tracy to Lathrop Station Parking Improvements

P-TL-A1 d

P-TL-A2 d

P-TL-A3 d

P-TL-A4 d

P-TL-A5 d

P-TL-B1 d

P-TL-B2 d

P-TL-ET d

P-TL-DT d

P-TL-RI d

P-TL-ELM d

P-TL-RLM d

Tracy to Lathrop – Alignment Optionsa All impacts are included below

TL-1a 98 7

TL-2aa 320 33

TL-2ba 315 34

TL-3a 94 2

TL-4aa 314 34

TL-4ba 340 0

Lathrop to Stocktona,e 26 0

Lathrop – Stockton (Existing Route) No receivers within screening distance.

Manteca to Modestoa,f 152 19

Modesto to Mercedb,g 350b 50b a The impacts in these areas are related to the increase in passenger train traffic. b Because Union Pacific Railroad train volume data was not available to model existing noise levels, only an estimate

of the number of impacts in this segment was available. c There are sensitive receptors within the screening distance. However, for longer-term improvements, there is not

enough information available to make an impact determination. If this longer-term improvement element is carried forward, it would need to be assessed for impact.

d There are no sensitive receptors within the screening distance; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. e These impacts would apply to Scenario B-2. f These impacts would apply to Scenario B-1.

DMU = diesel multiple unit; EMU = electric multiple unit



There are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of Alternatives P-SJF-1, P-SJF-2a, P-SJF-2b, P-SJF-

2c, P-SJF-2d, P-SJF-3, P-TV-3, P-TV-4, P-TV-5, P-A-1, P-A-2, P-A-3, P-TL-A1, P-TL-A2, P-TL-A3, P-

TL-A4, P-TL-A5, P-TL-B1, P-TL-B2, P-TL-ET, P-TL-DT, P-TL-ELM, P-TL-RI, P-TL-RLM, and P-LS-1

as thus noise-related impacts with these alternatives would be less than significant.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

There is insufficient information available to make an impact determination for the ACE to BART

connection alternatives in the Centerville to Union City and Tri-Valley segments and if any of these

longer-term alternatives are carried forward for a project-level analysis, a significance

determination would be made then. Impacts are considered potentially significant pending

completion of project-level evaluations.

Longer-term operations would result in certain moderate and severe noise impacts because of the

implementation of longer-term improvements, increased passenger service, the combination of

longer-term improvements and increased passenger service, and relocated freight service. For the

longer-term improvements and associated increase in passenger traffic, all the severe impacts are at

locations where train horns are sounded at grade crossings. Because longer-term operations would

cause an increase in ambient noise levels that exceed the FTA moderate or severe impact criteria,

this is considered a significant impact.


As described in Impact NOI-2, there are a number of difference methods to reduce the noise impacts

of cumulative trains. These methods include wayside horns, building sound insulation, quiet zones,

noise barriers, and grade separations. While the recommended mitigation below, where feasible to

implement, would help to reduce noise, it will take time to implement it and it may not be feasible to

reduce all noise impacts on a less-than-significant level; thus, this impact is disclosed as significant

and unavoidable.

As to secondary environmental impacts of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1, the environmental effects of

the different mitigation options would vary. Wayside horns and building sound insulation would

have limited to no secondary environmental impacts. Quiet zone improvements would require

additional construction, but the likely environmental impacts of such construction are limited given

the limited footprint of four-quadrant gates, active warning systems, medians, and street work. In

general, construction impacts for quiet zone improvements would be similar to the impacts

disclosed for improvements construction, would occur in previously developed and disturbed areas,

and would be temporary in nature. The applicable improvements mitigation described for

construction impacts in this EIR, where relevant, would also be applied to quiet zone improvements.

As to grade separations, the design and feasibility of a select number of future grade separations are

unknown and unstudied at this time; thus, the specific environmental impacts cannot be identified.

While they are statutorily exempt from CEQA review, grade separations may nevertheless have

substantial environmental impacts depending on their design and location, and their construction

can be highly disruptive. Therefore, as a conservative assumption, their secondary environmental

impacts are assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

SJRRC will work with other parties when implementing this measure to apply the relevant

construction mitigation measures identified in this EIR to these the implementation of future noise

mitigation improvements. SJRRC is only responsible for that portion of the cumulative increases

caused by the improvements. Other sources of cumulative increases including high-speed rail, other

passenger rail and freight services as well as non-rail sources near the ACEforward corridor would

also bear responsibility for cumulative noise increases.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measure would apply to all longer-term improvements (except

Alternatives P-SJF-1, P-SJF-2a, P-SJF-2b, P-SJF-2c, P-SJF-2d, P-SJF-3, P-TV-3, P-TV-4, P-TV-5, P-

A-1, P-A-2, P-A-3, P-TL-A1, P-TL-A2, P-TL-A3, P-TL-A4, P-TL-A5, P-TL-B1, P-TL-B2, P-TL-ET, P-

TL-DT, P-TL-ELM, P-TL-RI, P-TL-RLM, and P-LS-1) for noise impacts.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1: Implement a phased program to reduce train noise along the

ACE corridor as necessary to address noise increases over Federal Transit

Administration’s severe impact thresholds


Impact NOI-7 Construction of longer-term improvements could expose sensitive receptors to substantial increases in ground-borne vibration levels.


Mitigation Measures NOI-3.1: Implement a construction vibration control plan




Construction activities can be expected to generate vibration levels at 25 feet as high as 94 VdB from

compactors during site work, 87 VdB from bulldozers during rail work, and 104 VdB from impact

pile drivers during structures work. Except for pile drivers, it is unlikely that such equipment will be

used close enough to sensitive structures to have any damage effects. For pile driving, it is

anticipated that the potential for damage effects will be limited to structures located at distances in

the range of 30–75 feet from the operations, depending on the building category.

In terms of vibration annoyance effects or interference with the use of sensitive equipment, the

potential extent of vibration impact from pile driving is expected to be even greater than for damage

effects. Based on FTA methodology, Table 4.12-10 provides the approximate distances within which

receivers could experience construction-related vibration annoyance effects. The results of the

analysis indicate that vibration impacts would extend to distances of 230–630 feet from pile driving

operations, depending on vibration sensitivity.




vibration in excess of FTA thresholds. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from construction

activities would cause only intermittent localized disturbance along the rail corridor. Although

processes such as earth moving with bulldozers or the use of vibratory compaction rollers can

create annoying vibration, there should be only isolated cases where it is necessary to use this type

of equipment in close proximity to residential buildings. It is possible that construction activities

involving pile drivers occurring at the edge of or slightly outside of the current ROW could result in




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

vibration damage, and damage from construction vibration would be a potentially significant

impact.


With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3.1, vibration impacts would be avoided or

minimized; if building damage occurs due to construction then repairs would be made or

compensation provided. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3.1, impacts resulting

from construction vibration structural damage would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures


vibration impacts.

Mitigation Measure NOI-3.1: Implement construction vibration control plan


Impact NOI-8 Relocated passenger or freight service could result in severe vibration impacts

Level of Impact Potentially significant (Alternative CNS-2a)

Less than significant (all other longer-term alternatives)

Mitigation Measures NOI-4.1: Conduct a detailed design-level vibration analysis and implement vibration-reduction measures for identified receptors




The vibration impact assessment for the longer-term improvements assessed four major

components.

1. Longer-term improvements. Individual longer-term improvements were assessed for their

potential for impact in the vicinity of the specific improvements. There are no vibration impacts

associated with individual longer-term improvements.

2. Increased passenger service. For locations with existing train traffic, including freight,

commuter rail and/or Amtrak service, FTA vibration criteria for locations with existing

vibration was used. Because of the high volume of train traffic throughout the corridor and the

very small increase in the number of trains, and because the increased passenger service would

not result in vibration levels greater than existing levels, no vibration impacts are projected at

locations with existing train operations.

3. Near-term and longer-term improvements plus increased passenger service. In Tracy, the near-

term and longer-term improvements would relocate the existing passenger service and the

increased passenger service. These relocations were assessed as new projects for vibration

impacts. The only vibration impacts for longer-term improvements are at these locations.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

4. In the Tri-Valley area, longer-term improvements could result in new ACE, BART, or DMU

service in locations where no rail service currently exists and/or could result in additional bus

connections between ACE and BART, which could result in additional vibration effects.

Table 4.12-13 summarizes the results of the vibration impact assessment for longer-term

improvements. The only vibration impacts are in the Centerville/Niles/Sunol segment, where the

new tracks are located close to sensitive receptors. Figure 4.12-37 show the locations of vibration

impacts in the Centerville/Niles/Sunol segment graphically.


San Jose to Fremont

In this segment, there are two sources of vibration impact: (1) operation of up to 10 roundtrip ACE

passenger trains per day along the existing ACE route (6 additional trains over existing conditions

and 4 more trains than the near-term improvements); and (2) operation of a Tamien layover facility

(Alternative P-SJF-1).

The different alternatives for crossing the Alviso Baylands (Alternatives P-SJF-2a, P-SJF-2b,

P-SJF-2c, and P-SJF-2d) would not have notable differences in vibration impacts on sensitive

receptors as all alternatives would result in the same level of rail traffic in Alviso and Santa Clara.

Because of the high volume of train traffic throughout the corridor and the small increase in the

number of trains, and because the increased passenger service would not result in vibration levels

greater than existing levels, no vibration impacts are projected at locations with existing train

operations.

Alternative P-SJF-1 would include additional Tamien layover facility improvements beyond those

included in the near-term improvements. These improvements would occur between the existing

UPRR corridor and SR 87 and would not result in any change in vibration effects given existing

passenger and freight rail traffic in locations closer to sensitive receptors.

Centerville to Union City

In this segment, vibration impacts are related to the extension of service from Centerville to Union

City, which would be a new service on a corridor without existing passenger rail service.

There are no vibration impacts in this segment as there are no sensitive receptors within the

screening distance; thus, no impact would be expected.


Because of the existing train traffic throughout the corridor and the limited increase in the number

of trains, and because the increased freight service would not result in vibration levels greater than

existing train levels, no vibration impacts are projected at locations with existing train operations

along the Niles Subdivision.


In this segment, the only source of impact would be operation of up to 10 roundtrip ACE passenger

trains per day along the existing ACE route (6 additional trains over existing conditions and 4 more

trains than the near-term improvements). Because of the volume of train traffic throughout the

corridor and the small increase in the number of trains, and because the increased passenger service




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

would not result in vibration levels greater than existing levels along existing routes, no vibration

impacts are projected at locations with existing train operations.

The different near-term alternatives for transiting through Niles Canyon would not result in any

changes to the longer-term impacts because those alternatives would all leave ACE passenger

service on the existing UPRR route (and additional trains would have the same vibration profile as

existing ACE trains. While several of the near-term alternatives would allow for freight to use the

NCRY (Alternatives CNS-2a and CNS-2b), the longer-term alternatives would not change freight

operations; thus, vibration levels would not increase over that expected with near-term alternatives.

Thus, there would be no vibration impacts in this segment related to longer-term improvements.

Tri-Valley

In this segment, there are three sources of potential vibration impact from longer-term


along the existing ACE route (6 additional trains over existing conditions and 4 more trains than the

near-term improvements) (all alternatives); (2) operation of new BART, ACE, or DMU service

between Greenville and either Isabel or Dublin (Alternatives P-TV-1a, P-TV-1b, P-TV-1c, P-TV-2a,

P-TV-2b, P-TV-2c, and P-BART-1) or operation of new BART service to downtown Livermore

and/or Vasco (Alternatives P-BART-2 and P-BART-3); and (3) operation of additional bus service

to connect ACE to BART (Alternatives P-TV-1d and P-TV-2d).

Because of the volume of train traffic throughout the corridor on the existing UPRR corridor and the



with existing train operations along the UPRR corridor.

Based on a screening assessment, there is potential for vibration impacts associated with

Alternatives P-TV-1a, P-TV-1b, P-TV-1c, P-TV-2a, P-TV-2b, P-TV-2c, P-BART-1, P-BART-2, or

P-BART-3 at locations where the alternatives or project elements are not within the median of

I-580. The bus alternatives (Alternatives P-TV-1d and P-TV-2d) would not be expected to have

any vibration impacts at any locations, as rubber-tired vehicles do not generate vibration at a high

enough level to cause impacts. However, the operational details needed to separate out impacts

related to different longer-term improvements are not currently available. A detailed vibration

analysis will need to be conducted in the subsequent near-term improvement environmental

review.

There would be no impacts associated with Connection from Existing Alignment, Connection

from Altamont Tunnel, Connection from Long Tunnel, Facilities with Existing Alignment, and

Facilities with Altamont Tunnel or Long Tunnel as there are no sensitive receptors located near

these project elements.

Altamont

In this segment, there would be two sources of potential vibration impact from longer-term



near-term conditions); and (2) train operation along revised routes with Alternatives P-A-1, P-A-2,

and P-A-3.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




with existing train operations along the UPRR corridor. As to operations with revised routes, there

are no receptors close to the tracks that would have impacts; thus, there are no vibration impacts in

this segment.

Tracy to Lathrop

In this segment, there would be two sources of potential vibration impact from longer-term



near-term conditions) (near-term Alternative TL-1); and (2) operations of up to 10 roundtrip ACE

passenger trains along the existing ACE route and/or revised routes (6 additional trains over

existing conditions and 4 more trains over near-term conditions) (near-term Alternatives TL-2a,

TL-2b, TL-3, TL-4a, and TL-4b).





For near-term Alternatives TL-2a, TL-2b, TL-3, TL-4a, and TL-4b, with the longer-term

improvements, there would be increased vibration because of the increased service along new

routes and because of the locations of new tracks near sensitive receptors that were not previously

exposed to train vibration.

There are no vibration impacts in this segment as there are no receptors close to the tracks that

would have impacts.

Lathrop to Stockton





Manteca to Modesto





Modesto to Merced

The longer-term improvements would result in operation of up to four roundtrip ACE passenger

trains per day along the existing UPRR route (four additional trains over existing conditions).






May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Table 4.12-13 provides an overview of the vibration impacts associated with the longer-term

improvements and increased passenger service.

Table 4.12-13. Vibration Impacts in the Vicinity of Longer-Term Improvements

Longer-Term Improvement Alternatives Vibration Impacts

San Jose to Fremont 0

P-SJF-1 b

San Jose – Fremont (Existing route) 0

Centerville to Union City 0

P-UC-1a b

P-UC-1b b

P-UC-2a b

P-UC-2b b

Niles Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Elmhurst Junction 0

CNS-1a, CNS-2a, CNS-2b c


CNS-1c c

Centerville/Niles/Sunol 0

CNS-1a, CNS-1b, CNS-1c 0

CNS-2a 2

CNS-2b 0

Tri-Valley

Tri-Valley—Alignment Options

P-TV-1a a

P-TV-1b a

P-TV-1c a

P-TV-1d a

P-TV-2a a

P-TV-2b a

P-TV-2c a

P-TV-2d a

P-BART-1 a

P-BART-2 a

P-BART-3 a

Tri-Valley—Standard Rail Connection Options

Connection from Existing Alignment b

Connection from Altamont Tunnel b

Connection from Long Tunnel b

Tri-Valley—DMU/EMU Operational Facility Options

Facilities with Existing Alignment b




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Longer-Term Improvement Alternatives Vibration Impacts

Facilities with Altamont Tunnel or Long Tunnel b

P-TV-3 b

P-TV-4 b

P-TV-5 b

Altamont 0

P-A-1 b

P-A-2 b

P-A-3 b

Tracy to Lathrop

P-TL-A1 b

P-TL-A2 b

P-TL-A3 b

P-TL-A4 b

P-TL-A5 b

P-TL-B1 b

P-TL-B2 b

P-TL-ET b

P-TL-DT b

P-TL-RI b

P-TL-ELM b

P-TL-RLM b

Tracy to Lathrop – Alignment Options All impacts are included below

TL-1 0

TL-2a 0

TL-2b 0

TL-3 0

TL-4a 0

TL-4b 0

Lathrop to Stockton 0

P-LS-1 b

Manteca to Modesto 0

Modesto to Merced 0

P-MME-1a a

P-MME-1b a

a. There are sensitive receptors within the screening distance. However, for longer-term improvements, there is not enough information available to make an impact determination. If this element is carried forward into the project, it would need to be assessed for impact.

b. There are no sensitive receptors within the screening distance; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. c. There are no sensitive receptors within the screening distance, but freight vibration levels resulting from

additional freight movements would not be expected to result in greater vibration levels than existing trains along the segment.

DMU = diesel multiple unit; EMU = electric multiple unit.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15



Based on CEQA guidelines, there are two locations with vibration impacts from Alternative CNS-2a

that are considered significant. These impacts are because of the proximity of the new tracks to

sensitive receptors. All other longer-term improvements would not result in vibration impacts.


For Alternative CNS-2a, the vibration impacts identified marginally exceed the threshold for

impact. Because of this, a detailed vibration analysis should be conducted during project design to

determine the magnitude of the vibration impacts. In many cases, the number and magnitude of

impacts with a detailed vibration analysis are less than with a general vibration assessment because

of the conservative nature of the general assessment. If vibration impacts are still identified with the

detailed vibration analysis, the results will allow for specification of mitigation measures, such as

ballast mats or resilient tie pads, which would eliminate the impacts.

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measure would apply to Alternative CNS-2a for potential vibration

impacts.

Mitigation Measure NOI-4.1: Conduct a detailed design-level vibration analysis and

implement vibration reduction measures for identified receptors


4.12.5 Noise and Vibration Impact Tables

4.12.5.1 Near-Term Impact Tables

Table 4.12-14. San Jose to Fremont − Residential Noise Impact Assessment

Location Side of Track

Dist. to Near Track (ft)

Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)

Near-Term Noise Level Increase (dBA)

Type and # of Impacts Near-

Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Diridon Station to West Taylor Street

NB 282 35 55 0 3 6 0 0


SB 204 20 56 0 1 3 0 0

West Taylor Street to Nimitz Freeway

NB No noise-sensitive receptors


SB 298 60 55 0 2 4 0 0

Nimitz Freeway to De La Cruz Boulevard





May 2017 ICF 00458.15


Dist. to Near Track (ft)

Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 135 60 55 0 1 3 0 0

Aldo Avenue to Montague Expressway

NB 135 60 55 0 0 2 0 0


SB 189 60 55 0 2 6 0 0

Montague Expressway to Agnew Rd


Montague Expressway to Agnew Road

SB 116 60 55 0 0 2 0 0

Agnew Road to Fairway Glen Drive

NB 129 60 55 0 0 2 0 0


SB 88 60 55 0 0 2 0 0

Fairway Glen Drive to Tasman Drive

NB 133 60 55 0 1 4 0 0


SB No noise-sensitive receptors

Southbay Freeway to Guadalupe River

NB 111 45 65 0 1 4 0 0



Guadalupe River to Alviso Marina County Park

NB 83 70 55 0 0 1 0 0


SB 101 70 69 0 0 2 0 0


NB 282 35 55 0 3 6 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-15. San Jose to Fremont − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment


Dist to Near Track (ft)

Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Bellarmine College Preparatory

SB 349 60.0 56 0 6 11 0 0

Kathryn Hughes Elementary School

NB 476 60.0 55 0 7 12 0 0

Table 4.12-16. Niles Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Elmhurst Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, CNS-2b) − Residential Noise Impact Assessment



Max. Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)

Near-Term Noise Levels (dBA)


Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Niles Junction to Nursery Avenue

E 80 30 54 73 55 61 47 50

Niles Junction to Nursery Avenue

W 65 30 54 80 55 61 28 36

Nursery Avenue to Silver Street

E 63 30 61 80 58 64 37 57


W 59 30 61 81 58 64 39 46

Silver Street to Decoto Road

E 57 30 62 70 59 64 0 15


W 76 30 62 68 59 64 164 148

Decoto Road to Kathy Court

E 39 30 58 86 57 62 108 70


W 75 30 58 82 57 62 118 109

Kathy Court to Industrial Parkway

E 82 30 58 67 57 62 11 97


W No noise-sensitive receptors

Industrial Parkway to Tennyson Road

E 84 30 65 78 61 66 44 18


W 57 30 65 80 61 66 81 90

Tennyson Road to Jackson Street

E 58 30 58 77 57 62 66 89




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


W 104 30 58 76 57 62 98 64

Jackson Street to A Street

E 108 30 58 66 57 62 0 139


W 54 30 58 70 57 62 23 74

A Street to Blossom Way

E 61 30 58 81 57 62 22 29


W 76 30 58 79 57 62 15 36

Blossom Way to Paseo Grande

E 55 30 60 79 58 63 10 68


W 75 30 60 79 58 63 38 92

Paseo Grande to Hesperian Boulevard

E 61 30 60 83 58 63 59 68


W 87 30 60 81 58 63 29 33

Hesperian Boulevard to Aladdin Avenue

E 57 30 57 81 56 62 22 98


W 64 30 57 76 56 62 188 56

Aladdin Avenue to Davis Street

E 455 30 62 59 59 64 4 0


W 78 30 62 82 59 64 30 14

Davis Street to Moorpark Street

E 63 30 63 69 59 65 2 35


W 63 30 62 76 59 64 188 453

Moorpark Street to Elmhurst Junction

E 132 30 63 61 59 65 26 0


W 57 30 63 81 59 65 23 20




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-17. Niles Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Elmhurst Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b) − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

California Nursery Historical Park

W 289 30 54 64 60 66 1 0

Niles Discovery Church

W 64 30 54 75 60 66 0 1

Wat Buddnahusorn Temple

W 106 30 54 60 60 66 1 0

Gurdwara Sahib Temple

E 116 30 54 59 60 66 0 0

Hill View Baptist Church

E 43 30 65 80 66 71 0 1

Hill View Baptist Church 2

E 163 30 65 64 66 71 0 0

Purple Lotus University

E 102 30 65 74 66 71 0 1

New Hope Baptist Church

E 207 30 65 63 66 71 0 0

Cesar Chavez Middle School

E 294 30 56 64 61 67 1 0

Community Outreach Church

W 228 30 66 55 66 72 0 0

Bay Hills Community Church

W 266 30 66 47 66 72 0 0

Iglesia Adventista del Septimo Dia

E 139 30 54 58 60 66 0 0

Colonial Acres Elementary School

E 254 30 67 65 67 72 0 0

San Lorenzo High School

E 239 30 67 65 67 72 0 0

Pioneer Memorial Cemetery of San Lorenzo

W 118 30 67 70 67 72 1 0

SUM Bible College and Theological Seminary

W 62 30 56 75 61 67 0 1




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-18. Oakland Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Industrial Parkway, and Niles Subdivision, from Industrial Parkway and Elmhurst Junction (Alternative CNS-1c) − Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Niles Junction to Barcelona Drive

E 86 30 57 67 56 62 0 6

Niles Junction to Barcelona Drive


Barcelona Drive to Silver Street

E 56 30 57 70 56 62 11 53

Barcelona Drive to Silver Street



E 62 30 59 70 57 63 1 169


W 149 30 63 63 59 65 196 0


E 817 30 65 62 61 66 8 0


W 82 30 63 81 59 65 145 133


E No noise-sensitive receptors




E 84 30 65 78 61 66 44 18


W 57 30 65 80 61 66 81 90


E 58 30 58 77 57 62 66 89


W 104 30 58 76 57 62 98 64


E 108 30 58 66 57 62 0 139


W 54 30 58 70 57 62 23 74


E 61 30 58 81 57 62 22 29


W 76 30 58 79 57 62 15 36


E 55 30 60 79 58 63 10 68




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


W 75 30 60 79 58 63 38 92


E 61 30 60 83 58 63 59 68


W 87 30 60 81 58 63 29 33


E 57 30 57 81 56 62 22 98


W 64 30 57 76 56 62 188 56


E 455 30 62 59 59 64 4 0


W 78 30 62 82 59 64 30 14


E 63 30 63 69 59 65 2 35


W 63 30 62 76 59 64 188 453


E 132 30 63 61 59 65 26 0


W 57 30 63 81 59 65 23 20

Table 4.12-19. Oakland Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Industrial Parkway and Niles Subdivision, from Industrial Parkway to Elmhurst Junction (Alternative CNS-1c) − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Learn and Play Montessori School – Niles

E 484 30 55 39 60 66 0 0

Buddhist Temple W 237 30 55 54 60 66 0 0

James Logan High School

W 915 30 61 49 63 69 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


E 817 30 61 50 63 69 0 0


E 874 30 61 46 63 69 0 0


E 979 30 61 46 63 69 0 0


E 294 30 56 64 61 67 1 0


W 228 30 66 55 66 72 0 0


W 266 30 66 47 66 72 0 0


E 139 30 54 58 60 66 0 0


E 254 30 67 65 67 72 0 0


E 239 30 67 65 67 72 0 0


W 118 30 67 70 67 72 1 0


W 62 30 56 75 61 67 0 1

Table 4.12-20. Centerville/Niles/Sunol − Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Central Avenue to Newark Boulevard

NB 103 79 59 1 2 4 0 0


SB 150 79 59 0 2 4 0 0

Newark Boulevard to Nimitz Freeway

NB 113 79 59 0 2 4 0 0


SB 139 79 59 0 2 4 0 0

Nimitz Freeway to Dusterberry Way

NB 70 79 59 1 2 4 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 134 79 59 0 2 4 0 0

Dusterberry Way to Fremont Boulevard

NB 103 79 71 0 3 6 0 0


SB 95 79 64 1 2 4 0 0

Fremont Boulevard to Paseo Padre Parkway

NB 82 45 59 0 2 4 0 0


SB 151 45 59 0 2 4 0 0

Paseo Padre Parkway to Shinn Street

NB 81 79 57 1 2 4 0 0


SB 90 79 57 1 2 4 0 0

Shinn Street to Mission Boulevard

NB 73 79 57 1 2 4 0 0


SB 88 15 57 1 3 6 0 0

Niles Connection NB 100 15 57 1 3 6 0 0

Niles Connection SB 225 15 57 0 3 6 0 0

See Niles Canyon Tables

Carver Lane to Castlewood Drive

NB 457 45 68 0 3 6 0 0


SB 95 40 66 0 1 3 0 0

Table 4.12-21. Centerville/Niles/Sunol − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Newark Community Church

NB 481.0 15.0 71 0 3 6 0 0

Chinese Independent Baptist Church

NB 164.1 79.0 71 0 3 6 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Fremont Christian School

SB 359.7 79.0 66 0 3 7 0 0

Filipino-American United Church

NB 312.4 79.0 66 0 3 7 0 0

Live and Play Montessori School

NB 345.5 79.0 71 0 3 6 0 0

New Dawn Worship Center

SB 373.9 79.0 71 0 3 6 0 0

Templo Betania SB 310.6 79.0 71 0 3 6 0 0

Fremont Apostolic Church

NB 102.8 79.0 71 0 3 6 0 0

Church of Christ SB 352.2 79.0 71 0 3 6 0 0

Montessori School-Centerville

SB 146.4 79.0 71 0 3 6 0 0

Shinn Park and Arboretum

NB 445.3 79.0 67 0 3 7 0 0

Happy Valley Church

NB 457.3 45.0 68 0 3 6 0 0

Table 4.12-22. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1b, and CNS-1c) − Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Mission Boulevard to Canyon Heights Drive

NB 71 40 57 63 56 64 39 0


SB 72 40 57 64 56 64 29 0

Canyon Heights Drive to Stenhammer Drive

NB 139 40 57 59 56 64 0 0


SB 50 40 57 63 56 72 21 0

Niles Canyon NB No noise-sensitive receptors

Niles Canyon SB 282 40 57 48 56 70 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

2nd St to Carver Lane (Sunol)

NB 300 40 62 65 59 64 2 1

2nd St to Carver Lane (Sunol)

SB 60 40 57 59 56 62 2 0

Table 4.12-23. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1b, and CNS-1c) − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Dawoodi Bohra Masjid

SB 115 40 67 58 67 72 0 0

Sunol Glen Elementary School

NB 480 40 67 43 67 72 0 0

Table 4.12-24. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternative CNS-2a) − Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 71 40 57 60 56 62 19 0


SB 72 40 57 61 56 62 21 0


NB 139 40 57 56 56 62 0 0


SB 50 40 57 60 56 67 4 0


Niles Canyon SB 282 40 57 51 56 67 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

2nd Street to Carver Lane (Sunol)

NB 78 40 62 60 59 64 3 0


SB 138 40 57 59 56 62 2 0

Table 4.12-25. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternative CNS-2a) − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 115 40 67 55 67 72 0 0


NB 480 40 67 40 67 72 0 0

Table 4.12-26. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternative CNS-2b) − Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 71 40 57 60 56 62 19 0


SB 72 40 57 61 56 62 21 0


NB 139 40 57 56 56 62 0 0


SB 50 40 57 60 56 67 4 0





May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Niles Canyon SB 282 40 57 51 56 67 0 0


NB 78 40 62 63 59 64 2 1


SB 138 40 57 59 56 62 2 0

Table 4.12-27. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternative CNS-2b) − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 115 40 67 55 67 72 0 0


NB 480 40 67 43 67 72 0 0

Table 4.12-28. Tri-Valley − Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)


Type and # of Impacts* Near-

Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Castlewood Drive to I-680



SB 437 45 57 0 3 6 0 0

I-680 to Bernal Avenue

NB 127 60 57 0 3 6 0 0


SB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bernal Avenue to Del Valle Parkway

NB 53 60 62 2 2 4 1 0


SB 66 60 62 2 2 4 2 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Del Valle Parkway to Valley Avenue

NB 84 70 57 1 2 4 0 0


SB 90 70 57 1 2 4 0 0

Isabel Avenue to North Murrieta Boulevard

NB 271 70 57 1 3 6 0 0


SB 270 70 57 1 3 6 0 0

North Murrieta Boulevard to North P Street

NB 113 70 57 2 3 6 0 0


SB 103 70 57 3 3 6 1 0

North P Street to Junction Avenue

NB 174 70 62 2 2 4 0 0


SB 74 70 57 4 2 4 19 0

Junction Avenue to North Mines Road

NB 85 60 57 3 2 4 7 0


SB 100 60 57 2 2 4 0 0

North Mines Road to Joyce Street

NB 112 60 57 2 3 6 0 0


SB 166 60 57 0 3 6 0 0

Joyce Street to South Vasco Road

NB 257 60 57 1 3 6 0 0



* The impacts in the Tri-Valley segment are related to the increase in passenger train traffic and not the near-term alternatives.




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-29. Tri-Valley − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Hearst Elementary School

NB 185.0 60.0 63 0 4 8 0 0

Pleasanton Middle School

NB 342.3 60.0 63 0 4 8 0 0

Amador Valley High School

SB 499.8 45.0 67 0 3 7 0 0

Iglesia Ni Cristo, Livermore

SB 99.6 60.0 67 0 3 7 0 0

*The impacts in the Tri-Valley segment are related to the increase in passenger train traffic and not the near-term alternatives.

Table 4.12-30. Altamont − Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

I-580 to Carroll Road

NB 203 35 74 0 1 2 0 0



Altamont NB 484 40 74 0 1 2 0 0

Altamont SB No noise-sensitive receptors

Table 4.12-31. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-1) - Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

I-580 to Corral Hollow Road

NB 428 60 46 3 7 13 0 0


SB 166 70 46 7 7 13 1 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Corral Hollow Road to Tracy Boulevard

NB 199 70 57 1 2 4 0 0


SB 116 70 57 3 2 4 17 0

Tracy Boulevard to South MacArthur Drive

NB 136 70 62 2 2 4 2 0


SB 134 70 57 2 2 4 1 0

South MacArthur Drive to North Chrisman Road

NB 158 70 57 1 2 4 0 0


SB 82 70 57 3 2 4 6 0

Riva Trigoso Drive to SR 120

NB 220 79 59 1 2 5 0 0



SR 120 to West Yosemite Avenue

NB 173 60 64 2 2 4 0 0


SB 97 60 64 4 2 4 3 0

East Louise Avenue to McKinley Avenue



SB 217 50 59 2 2 4 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-32. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-2a) - Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Patterson Pass Road to I-580



SB 372 60 46 50 52 59 0 0

I-580 to South Lammers Road

NB 269 70 46 53 52 59 2 0


SB 339 70 46 51 52 59 0 0

South Lammers Road to Corral Hollow Road

NB 292 50 57 52 56 62 0 0

South Lammers Rd to Corral Hollow Road

SB 224 70 57 60 56 62 6 0


NB 237 50 57 62 56 62 35 0


SB 228 50 57 60 56 62 43 0

Tracy Boulevard to North Central Avenue

NB 139 50 57 63 56 62 33 0


SB 224 50 57 60 56 62 19 0

North Central Avenue to North MacArthur Drive

NB 262 50 62 59 59 64 0 0


SB 142 50 57 63 56 62 72 0

Banta NB 142 70 62 65 59 64 2 2

Banta SB 124 50 62 65 59 64 6 1

I-205 to Old River NB No noise-sensitive receptors

I-205 to Old River SB 197 70 57 55 56 62 0 0

Old River to I-5 NB No noise sensitive receptors.

Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 59 53 57 63 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.




SB 199 50 59 60 57 63 0 0

Table 4.12-33. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-2a) - Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Valley Community Baptist Church

NB 292 50 67 52 67 72 0 0

Montessori School of Tracy

NB 309 50 67 51 67 72 0 0

Tracy Southern Baptist Church

NB 478 50 67 44 67 72 0 0

Grace Christian Center

NB 193 50 63 44 64 70 0 0

Lathrop Church of Christ

SB 452 50 66 38 67 72 0 0

Table 4.12-34. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-2b) - Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

South Lammers Connector

NB 357 70 46 51 52 59 0 0


SB 141 60 46 57 52 59 1 0


NB 292 50 57 52 56 62 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 224 70 57 60 56 62 6 0


NB 237 50 57 62 56 62 35 0


SB 228 50 57 60 56 62 43 0


NB 139 50 57 63 56 62 33 0


SB 224 50 57 60 56 62 19 0


NB 262 50 62 59 59 64 0 0


SB 142 50 57 63 56 62 72 0

Banta NB 142 70 62 65 59 64 2 2

Banta SB 124 50 62 65 59 64 6 1


I-205 to Old River SB 197 70 57 55 56 62 0 0

Old River to I-5 NB No noise-sensitive receptors

Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 59 53 57 63 0 0




SB 199 50 59 60 57 63 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-35. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-2b) - Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 292 50 67 52 67 72 0 0


NB 309 50 67 51 67 72 0 0


NB 478 50 67 44 67 72 0 0


NB 193 50 63 44 64 70 0 0


SB 452 50 66 38 67 72 0 0





Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 428 60 46 46 52 59 0 0


SB 166 70 46 52 52 59 1 0


NB 199 70 57 52 56 62 0 0


SB 116 70 57 61 56 62 17 0


NB 136 70 62 60 59 64 2 0


SB 134 70 57 60 56 62 1 0


NB 158 70 57 55 56 62 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 82 70 57 63 56 62 6 0

Lyoth-Banta Connector

NB 125 70 62 66 59 64 2 1

Lyoth-Banta Connector

SB 456 50 64 55 60 66 0 0


I-205 to Old River SB 197 70 57 55 56 62 0 0


Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 59 53 57 63 0 0




SB 199 50 59 60 57 63 0 0

Table 4.12-37. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-3) - Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 452 50 66 38 67 72 0 0





Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.






May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 372 60 46 50 52 59 0 0


NB 269 70 46 53 52 59 2 0


SB 339 70 46 51 52 59 0 0


NB 292 50 57 52 56 62 0 0


SB 224 70 57 60 56 62 6 0


NB 237 50 57 62 56 62 35 0


SB 228 50 57 60 56 62 43 0


NB 139 50 57 63 56 62 33 0


SB 224 50 57 60 56 62 19 0


NB 262 50 62 59 59 64 0 0


SB 142 50 57 63 56 62 72 0

Banta NB 142 70 62 65 59 64 2 2

Banta SB 124 50 62 65 59 64 6 1


I-205 to Old River SB 197 70 57 55 56 62 0 0


Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 59 53 57 63 0 0


NB 176 60 64 61 60 66 4 0


SB 233 60 64 60 60 66 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 292 50 67 52 67 72 0 0


NB 309 50 67 51 67 72 0 0


NB 478 50 67 44 67 72 0 0


NB 193 50 63 44 64 70 0 0

Table 4.12-40. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-4b)- Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 357 70 46 51 52 59 0 0


SB 141 60 46 57 52 59 1 0


NB 292 50 57 52 56 62 0 0


SB 224 70 57 60 56 62 6 0


NB 237 50 57 62 56 62 35 0


SB 228 50 57 60 56 62 43 0


NB 139 50 57 63 56 62 33 0


SB 224 50 57 60 56 62 19 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 262 50 62 59 59 64 0 0


SB 142 50 57 63 56 62 72 0

Banta NB 142 70 62 65 59 64 2 2

Banta SB 124 50 62 65 59 64 6 1


I-205 to Old River SB 197 70 57 55 56 62 0 0


Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 59 53 57 63 0 0


NB 176 60 64 61 60 66 4 0


SB 233 60 64 60 60 66 0 0




Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 292 50 67 52 67 72 0 0


NB 309 50 67 51 67 72 0 0


NB 478 50 67 44 67 72 0 0


NB 193 50 63 44 64 70 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-42. Lathrop to Stockton − Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

McKinley Avenue to Brookfield Avenue



SB 237 50 59 1 2 4 0 0

Roth Road to East Wyman Road

NB 152 70 70 0 0 2 0 0



East Wyman Road to French Camp Road

NB 159 50 75 0 0 2 0 0


SB 146 50 73 0 0 2 0 0

California Street to East Charter Way



SB 87 50 59 2 2 5 0 0

East Charter Way to SR 4

NB 431 50 64 0 2 4 0 0


SB 449 50 59 0 2 5 0 0

SR 4 to Stockton Station

NB 437 50 66 0 1 3 0 0


SB 166 50 66 1 1 3 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-43. Lathrop to Stockton − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Haven Peace Inc. SB 185 50 73 0 2 5 0 0

Gurdwara Sahib Sikh Temple

SB 184 50 66 0 3 7 0 0

Table 4.12-44. Manteca to Modesto − Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

South Airport Way to West Louise Avenue

NB 57 50 64 65 60 66 18 0


SB 190 50 64 57 60 66 0 0

West Louise Avenue to North Union Rd

NB 56 50 59 65 57 63 12 0

West Louise Avenue to North Union Rd

SB 126 50 59 60 57 63 0 0

North Union Road to West Yosemite Avenue

NB 44 50 73 66 65 72 10 0


SB 95 50 73 64 65 72 0 0

West Yosemite Avenue to South Main Street



SB 246 50 73 53 65 72 0 0

South Main Street to South Powers Avenue

NB 243 50 69 56 63 69 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.



South Powers Avenue to SR 120

NB 206 50 69 57 63 69 0 0



SR 120 to East Woodward Avenue



SB 188 50 62 51 59 64 0 0

Austin Road to South Olive Avenue

NB 239 70 72 50 65 71 0 0


SB 351 70 76 53 65 74 0 0

South Olive Avenue to Jack Tone Road

NB 273 70 61 49 58 64 0 0


SB 302 70 61 49 58 64 0 0

Jack Tone Road to Fulton Avenue



SB 481 50 59 37 62 68 0 0

Fulton Avenue to Main Street

NB 214 50 66 50 62 67 0 0


SB 181 50 66 51 62 67 0 0

Main Street to Stanislaus River

NB 294 50 66 48 62 67 0 0



Hammet Road to Toomes Road

NB 343 50 66 47 61 67 0 0



Toomes Road to Kiernan Avenue

NB 361 50 64 39 65 70 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 199 50 66 52 61 67 0 0

Kiernan Avenue to Bangs Avenue

NB 341 50 70 49 65 70 0 0


SB 98 50 66 63 61 67 0 0

Bangs Avenue to Murphy Road

NB 139 50 66 59 61 67 0 0


SB 259 50 66 49 61 67 0 0

Murphy Road to Beckwith Road

NB 380 50 70 39 69 74 0 0


SB 416 50 70 51 65 70 0 0

Beckwith Road to Conant Avenue

NB 340 50 65 47 60 66 0 0


SB 212 50 66 50 61 67 0 0

Conant Avenue to West Briggsmore Avenue

NB 413 50 65 45 60 66 0 0


SB 228 50 64 42 65 70 0 0

West Briggsmore Avenue to Princeton Avenue

NB 459 50 57 45 56 62 0 0



Princeton Avenue to Kansas Avenue

NB 139 50 62 57 59 64 0 0



Kansas Avenue to Modesto Station

NB 312 50 70 52 65 70 0 0

Kansas Avenue to Modesto Station





May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-45. Manteca to Modesto − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Valley Charter High School

NB 139 50 63 46 64 70 0 0

Modesto Junior College

SB 228 50 64 42 65 70 0 0

Humphreys College

NB 380 50 70 39 69 74 0 0

San Joaquin Valley College

NB 361 50 64 39 65 70 0 0

Ripon Cemetery NB 283 50 71 41 70 75 0 0

Ripon Christian Schools

SB 412 50 71 38 70 75 0 0

Zion United Reformed Church

SB 481 50 59 37 62 68 0 0

Freewill Baptist Church

NB 163 50 82 53 70 80 0 0

Manteca Gospel Assembly

NB 198 50 82 49 70 80 0 0

Freedom Christian Center

NB 358 50 82 41 70 75 0 0

Table 4.12-46. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternative CNS-2a) − Residential Vibration Impact Assessment


Distance to Near Track (ft)


Vibration Levels (VdB)

# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria


NB No vibration-sensitive receptors


SB 344 40 64 80 0

Niles Canyon NB No vibration-sensitive receptors

Niles Canyon SB 87 40 78 80 0


NB 300 40 74 80 0


SB 60 40 82 80 2




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-47. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternative CNS-2a) − Institutional Vibration Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)


# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria

Dawoodi Bohra Masjid SB 390 40 62 83 0

Golden Gate Primitive Baptist Church

SB 346 40 64 83 0

Table 4.12-48. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternative CNS-2b) − Residential Vibration Impact Assessment





# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria




SB 344 40 64 80 0

Niles Canyon NB No vibration-sensitive receptors

Niles Canyon SB 87 40 78 80 0


NB 300 40 74 80 0


SB 60 40 73 80 0

Table 4.12-49. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternative CNS-2b) − Institutional Vibration Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)


# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria

Dawoodi Bohra Masjid SB 390 40 62 83 0


NB 480 40 60 83 0

Golden Gate Primitive Baptist Church

SB 346 40 64 83 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-50. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-2a) − Residential Vibration Impact Assessment





# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria




SB 372 60 66 80 0


NB 269 70 71 80 0


SB 339 70 77 80 0


NB 292 50 67 80 0


SB 224 70 73 80 0


NB 237 50 70 80 0


SB 228 50 70 80 0


NB 139 50 75 80 0


SB 224 50 70 80 0


NB 262 50 69 80 0


SB 142 50 75 80 0

Banta NB 142 70 79 80 0

Banta SB 124 50 77 80 0

I-205 to Old River NB No vibration-sensitive receptors

I-205 to Old River SB 197 70 75 80 0

Old River to I-5 NB No vibration-sensitive receptors

Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 72 80 0




SB 199 50 72 80 0

Table 4.12-51. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-2a) − Institutional Vibration Impact Assessment




May 2017 ICF 00458.15



Train Speed (mph)


# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria


NB 292 50 68 83 0

Montessori School of Tracy NB 309 50 67 83 0


NB 478 50 62 83 0

Grace Christian Center NB 193 50 72 83 0

Lathrop Church of Christ SB 452 50 63 83 0

Table 4.12-52. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-2b)− Residential Vibration Impact Assessment





# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria

South Lammers Connector NB 357 70 68 80 0

South Lammers Connector SB 141 60 77 80 0


NB 292 50 67 80

0


SB 224 70 73 80

0


NB 237 50 70 80

0


SB 228 50 70 80

0


NB 139 50 75 80

0


SB 224 50 70 80

0


NB 262 50 69 80

0


SB 142 50 75 80

0

Banta NB 142 70 79 80 0

Banta SB 124 50 77 80 0


I-205 to Old River SB 197 70 75 80 0


Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 72 80 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15





# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria




SB 199 50 72 80 0

Table 4.12-53. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-2b) − Institutional Vibration Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)


# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria


NB 292 50 68 83 0



NB 478 50 62 83 0



Table 4.12-54. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-3) − Residential Vibration Impact Assessment





# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria

Lyoth-Banta Connector NB 125 70 68 80 0

Lyoth-Banta Connector SB 456 50 77 80 0


I-205 to Old River SB 197 70 75 80 0


Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 72 80 0




SB 199 50 72 80 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-55. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-3) − Institutional Vibration Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)


# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria


Table 4.12-56. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-4a) − Residential Vibration Impact Assessment





# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria




SB 372 60 66 80 0


NB 269 70 71 80 0


SB 339 70 69 80 0


NB 292 50 67 80 0


SB 224 70 73 80 0


NB 237 50 70 80 0


SB 228 50 70 80 0


NB 139 50 75 80 0


SB 224 50 70 80 0


NB 262 50 69 80 0


SB 142 50 75 80 0

Banta NB 142 70 77 80 0

Banta SB 124 50 77 80 0

I-205 to Old River NB No vibration-sensitive receptors.

I-205 to Old River SB 197 70 75 80 0

Old River to I-5 NB No vibration-sensitive receptors.

Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 72 80 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15





# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria


NB 176 60 74 80 0


SB 233 60 72 80 0

Table 4.12-57. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-4a) − Institutional Vibration Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)


# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria


NB 292 50 68 83 0


Tracy Southern Baptist Church NB 478 50 62 83 0



Table 4.12-58. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-4b) − Residential Vibration Impact Assessment





# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria

South Lammers Connector NB 357 70 68 80 0

South Lammers Connector SB 141 60 77 80 0


NB 292 50 67 80 0


SB 224 70 73 80 0


NB 237 50 70 80 0


SB 228 50 70 80 0


NB 139 50 75 80 0


SB 224 50 70 80 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15





# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria


NB 262 50 69 80 0


SB 142 50 75 80 0

Banta NB 142 70 77 80 0

Banta SB 124 50 77 80 0


I-205 to Old River SB 197 70 75 80 0


Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 72 80 0


NB 176 60 74 80 0


SB 233 60 72s 80 0

Table 4.12-59. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-4b) − Institutional Vibration Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)


# of Impacts

Near-Term Level

FTA Criteria


NB 292 50 68 83 0


Tracy Southern Baptist Church NB 478 50 62 83 0






May 2017 ICF 00458.15

4.12.5.2 Longer-Term Improvement Impact Tables

Table 4.12-60. San Jose to Fremont − Residential Noise Impact Assessment


Near Track Dist (ft)


Existing Noise (dBA)

Longer-Term Noise Levels (dBA)

Type and # of Impacts Longer-

Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 282 35 55 0 3 6 0 0


SB 204 20 56 0 1 3 0 0




SB 298 60 55 0 2 4 0 0




SB 135 60 55 0 1 3 0 0


NB 135 60 55 1 0 2 0 0


SB 189 60 55 1 2 6 0 0




SB 116 60 55 1 0 2 0 0


NB 129 60 55 1 0 2 0 0

Agnew Rd to Fairway Glen Drive

SB 88 60 55 1 0 2 0 0


NB 133 60 55 0 1 4 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15







Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.




NB 111 45 65 1 1 4 0 0




NB 83 70 55 0 0 1 0 0


SB 101 70 69 0 0 2 0 0


NB 282 35 55 0 3 6 0 0

Table 4.12-61. San Jose to Fremont − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)




Term

Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Bellarmine College Preparatory

SB 347 60 56 0 6 11 0 0

Kathryn Hughes Elementary School

NB 476 60 55 0 7 12 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-62. Niles Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Elmhurst Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, CNS-2b) − Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)

Long-Term Noise Levels (dBA)

Type and # of Impacts Long-

Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Southern Extent to Nursery Avenue

NB 80 30 54 75 55 61 43 64


SB 65 30 54 82 55 61 21 44


NB 63 30 61 82 58 64 22 81


SB 59 30 61 83 58 64 39 50


NB 57 30 62 72 59 64 0 15


SB 76 30 62 70 59 64 158 154


NB 39 30 58 88 57 62 119 91


SB 75 30 58 84 57 62 130 122


NB 82 30 58 69 57 62 12 102


SB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


NB 84 30 65 80 61 66 51 18


SB 57 30 65 82 61 66 36 147


NB 58 30 58 78 57 62 92 100


SB 104 30 58 78 57 62 175 85


NB 108 30 58 67 57 62 8 139


SB 54 30 58 72 57 62 51 74




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 61 30 58 82 57 62 20 36


SB 76 30 58 81 57 62 24 36


NB 55 30 60 81 58 63 21 68


SB 75 30 60 81 58 63 57 97


NB 61 30 60 85 58 63 100 81


SB 87 30 60 83 58 63 37 39


NB 57 30 57 83 56 62 61 102


SB 64 30 57 77 56 62 95 181


NB 455 30 62 61 59 64 29 0


SB 78 30 62 83 59 64 55 20


NB 63 30 63 71 59 65 0 37


SB 63 30 62 78 59 64 54 591

Moorpark Street to Northern Extent

NB 132 30 63 63 59 65 30 0


SB 57 30 63 83 59 65 24 22




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-63. Niles Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Elmhurst Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, CNS-2b) − Institutional Noise Impacts Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

California Nursery Historical Park

SB 289 30 54 64 60 66 1 0

Niles Discovery Church

SB 64 30 54 75 60 66 0 1

Wat Buddnahusorn Temple

SB 106 30 54 60 60 66 1 0

Gurdwara Sahis Temple

NB 116 30 54 59 60 66 0 0


NB 43 30 65 80 66 71 0 1

HIl Viee Baptist Church 2

NB 163 30 65 64 66 71 0 0


NB 102 30 65 74 66 71 0 1


NB 207 30 65 63 66 71 0 0


NB 294 30 56 64 61 67 1 0


SB 228 30 66 55 66 72 0 0


SB 266 30 66 47 66 72 0 0


NB 139 30 54 58 60 66 0 0


NB 254 30 67 65 67 72 0 0


NB 239 30 67 65 67 72 0 0


SB 118 30 67 70 67 72 1 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 62 30 56 75 61 67 0 1

Table 4.12-64. Oakland Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Industrial Parkway, and Niles Subdivision, from Industrial Parkway and Elmhurst Junction (Alternative CNS-1c) − Residential Noise Impact Assessment




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 86 30 57 69 56 62 0 6




NB 56 30 57 72 56 62 12 56




NB 62 30 59 71 57 63 5 170


SB 149 30 63 65 59 65 190 6


NB 817 30 65 63 61 66 8 0


SB 82 30 63 83 59 65 129 189






NB 84 30 65 80 61 66 51 18


SB 57 30 65 82 61 66 36 147


NB 58 30 58 78 57 62 92 100




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 104 30 58 78 57 62 175 85


NB 108 30 58 67 57 62 8 139


SB 54 30 58 72 57 62 51 74


NB 61 30 58 82 57 62 20 36


SB 76 30 58 81 57 62 24 36


NB 55 30 60 81 58 63 21 68


SB 75 30 60 81 58 63 57 97


NB 61 30 60 85 58 63 100 81


SB 87 30 60 83 58 63 37 39


NB 57 30 57 83 56 62 61 102


SB 64 30 57 77 56 62 95 181


NB 455 30 62 61 59 64 29 0


SB 78 30 62 83 59 64 55 20


NB 63 30 63 71 59 65 0 37


SB 63 30 62 78 59 64 54 591


NB 132 30 63 63 59 65 30 0


SB 57 30 63 83 59 65 24 22




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-65. Oakland Subdivision, from Niles Junction to Industrial Parkway, and Niles Subdivision, from Industrial Parkway and Elmhurst Junction (Alternative CNS-1c) − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)

Existing Noise

Level (dBA)



Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Learn and Play Montessori School – Niles

NB 484 30 55 39 60 66 0 0

Buddhist Temple SB 237 30 55 54 60 66 0 0

James Logan High School

SB 915 30 61 49 63 69 0 0


NB 817 30 61 50 63 69 0 0


NB 874 30 61 46 63 69 0 0


NB 979 30 61 46 63 69 0 0


NB 294 30 56 64 61 67 1 0


SB 228 30 66 55 66 72 0 0


SB 266 30 66 47 66 72 0 0


NB 139 30 54 58 60 66 0 0


NB 254 30 67 65 67 72 0 0


NB 239 30 67 65 67 72 0 0


SB 118 30 67 70 67 72 1 0


SB 62 30 56 75 61 67 0 1




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-66. Centerville/Niles/Sunol − Residential Noise Impact Assessment







Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 103 79 59 1 2 4 0 0


SB 150 79 59 1 2 4 0 0


NB 113 79 59 1 2 4 0 0


SB 139 79 59 1 2 4 0 0


NB 70 79 59 2 2 4 8 0


SB 134 79 59 1 2 4 0 0


NB 103 79 71 0 3 6 0 0


SB 95 79 64 1 2 4 0 0


NB 82 45 59 1 2 4 0 0


SB 151 45 59 1 2 4 0 0


NB 81 79 57 2 2 4 6 0


SB 90 79 57 2 2 4 1 0


NB 73 79 57 3 2 4 2 0


SB 88 15 57 3 3 6 0 0

Overacker Avenue Offshoot

NB 62 15 57 4 2 4 8 0

Overacker Avenue Offshoot

SB 97 15 57 2 2 4 0 0

Niles Connection NB 100 15 57 2 3 6 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15







Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Niles Connection SB 225 15 57 1 3 6 0 0

Shinn Offshoot NB 110 15 57 2 3 6 0 0

Shinn Offshoot SB No noise sensitive receivers

See Niles Canyon Tables


NB 457 45 68 0 3 6 0 0


SB 95 40 66 0 1 3 0 0

Table 4.12-67. Centerville/Niles/Sunol − Intuitional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)




Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Newark Community Church

NB 481 15 71 0 3 6 0 0

Chinese Independent Baptist Church

NB 164 79 71 0 3 6 0 0

Fremont Christian School

SB 360 79 66 0 3 7 0 0

Filipino-American United Church

NB 312 79 66 0 3 7 0 0

Live and Play Montessori School

NB 346 79 71 0 3 6 0 0

New Dawn Worship Center

SB 374 79 71 0 3 6 0 0

Templo Betania SB 311 79 71 0 3 6 0 0

Fremont Apostolic Church

NB 103 79 71 0 3 6 0 0

Church of Christ SB 352 79 71 0 3 6 0 0

Montessori School-Centerville

SB 146 79 71 0 3 6 0 0

Shinn Park and Arboretum

NB 445 79 67 0 3 6 0 0

Happy valley Church

NB 457 45 68 0 3 6 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-68. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a and CNS-1b) − Residential Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)



Type and # of Impacts Longer

-Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 71 40 57 67 56 62 34 32


SB 72 40 57 68 56 62 13 29


NB 139 40 57 63 56 62 21 0


SB 50 40 57 67 56 62 24 10

Niles Canyon NB No noise sensitive receivers.

Niles Canyon SB 282 40 57 52 56 67 0 0


NB 78 40 62 67 59 64 0 3


SB 138 40 57 64 56 62 10 0

Table 4.12-69. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternatives CNS-1a and CNS-1b) − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)




Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 115 40 67 61 67 72 0 0


NB 480 40 67 45 67 72 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-70. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternative CNS-2a) − Residential Noise Impact Assessment







Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 71 40 57 64 56 62 28 18


SB 72 40 57 65 56 62 32 3


NB 139 40 57 60 56 62 9 0


SB 50 40 57 64 56 62 26 0


Niles Canyon SB 282 40 57 55 56 67 0 0


NB 78 40 62 64 59 64 3 0


SB 138 40 57 64 56 62 22 0

Table 4.12-71. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternative CNS-2a) − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)




-Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 115 40 67 55 67 72 0 0


NB 480 40 67 42 67 72 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-72. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternative CNS-2b) − Residential Noise Impact Assessment







Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 71 40 57 64 56 62 28 18


SB 72 40 57 65 56 62 32 3


NB 139 40 57 60 56 67 9 0


SB 50 40 57 64 56 67 26 0


Niles Canyon SB 282 40 57 55 56 67 0 0


NB 78 40 62 67 59 64 0 3


SB 138 40 57 64 56 62 10 0

Table 4.12-73. Centerville/Niles/Sunol, East of Niles Junction (Alternative CNS-2b) − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)




-Term

Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 115 40 67 58 67 72 0 0


NB 480 40 67 45 67 72 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-74. Tri-Valley − Residential Noise Impact Assessment







Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB No noise sensitive receivers.


SB 437 45 57 0 3 6 0 0


NB 127 60 57 1 3 6 0 0


SB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


NB 53 60 62 4 2 4 39 0


SB 66 60 62 5 2 4 16 1


NB 84 70 57 3 2 4 10 0


SB 90 70 57 2 2 4 16 0


NB 271 70 57 2 3 6 0 0


SB 270 70 57 2 3 6 0 0


NB 113 70 57 5 3 6 381 0


SB 103 70 57 5 3 6 38 0


NB 174 70 62 3 2 4 86 0


SB 74 70 57 7 2 4 17 16




May 2017 ICF 00458.15







Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 85 60 57 5 2 4 41 0


SB 100 60 57 4 2 4 11 0


NB 112 60 57 4 3 6 18 0


SB 166 60 57 1 3 6 0 0


NB 257 60 57 1 3 6 0 0


SB No noise-sensitive receptors.

Table 4.12-75. Tri-Valley − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)




Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Hearst Elementary School

NB 185 60 63 0 4 8 0 0

Pleasanton Middle School

NB 342 60 63 0 4 8 0 0

Amador Valley High School

SB 500 45 67 0 3 7 0 0

Iglesia Ni Cristo, Livermore

SB 100 60 67 1 3 7 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-76. Altamont − Residential Noise Impact Assessment for Altamont







-Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 203 35 74 0 1 2 0 0



Altamont NB 484 40 74 0 1 2 0 0

Altamont SB No noise-sensitive receptors.


NB No noise-sensitive receptors.


SB 166 70 46 11 7 13 1 0








Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 428 60 46 5 7 13 0 0




NB 199 70 57 2 2 4 0 0


SB 116 70 57 5 2 4 54 1


NB 136 70 62 4 2 4 2 0


SB 134 70 57 4 2 4 3 0

South MacArthur Drive to

NB 158 70 57 3 2 4 7 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15







Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

North Chrisman Road


SB 82 70 57 6 2 4 10 5


NB 220 79 59 2 2 5 0 0




NB 173 60 64 2 2 4 1 0


SB 97 60 64 4 2 4 3 1




SB 217 50 59 2 2 4 12 0








Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.




SB 372 60 46 52 52 64 1 0


NB 269 70 46 55 52 64 3 0


SB 339 70 46 54 52 64 2 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15







Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 292 50 57 54 56 67 0 0


SB 224 70 57 62 56 62 18 0


NB 237 50 57 64 56 62 81 0


SB 228 50 57 62 56 62 69 0


NB 139 50 57 65 56 62 37 0


SB 224 50 57 62 56 62 21 0


NB 262 50 62 61 59 64 3 0


SB 142 50 57 65 56 62 86 0

Banta NB 142 70 62 68 59 64 12 0

Banta SB 124 50 62 67 59 64 8 0

I-205 to Old River


I-205 to Old River

SB 197 70 57 58 56 67 1 0


Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 59 56 57 68 0 0



East Louise Avenue to

SB 199 50 59 62 57 63 4 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15







Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

McKinley Avenue




Train Speed (mph)




Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 292 50 67 54 67 72 0 0


NB 309 50 67 54 67 72 0 0


NB 478 50 67 46 67 72 0 0


NB 193 50 63 46 64 70 0 0


SB 452 50 66 40 67 72 0 0








Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

South Lammers Crossover

NB 357 70 46 53 52 64 1 0


SB 141 60 46 59 52 64 1 0


NB 292 50 57 54 56 67 0 0


SB 224 70 57 62 56 62 18 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15







Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 237 50 57 64 56 62 81 0


SB 228 50 57 62 56 62 69 0


NB 139 50 57 65 56 62 37 0


SB 224 50 57 62 56 62 21 0


NB 262 50 62 61 59 64 3 0


SB 142 50 57 65 56 62 86 0

Banta NB 142 70 62 68 59 64 12 0

Banta SB 124 50 62 67 59 64 8 0

I-205 to Old River


I-205 to Old River

SB 197 70 57 58 56 67 1 0


Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 59 56 57 68 0 0




SB 199 50 59 62 57 63 4 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Train Speed (mph)




Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 292 50 67 54 67 72 0 0


NB 309 50 6r7 54 67 72 0 0


NB 478 50 67 46 67 72 0 0


NB 193 50 63 46 64 70 0 0


SB 452 50 66 40 67 72 0 0








Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 428 60 46 49 53 59 0 0




NB 199 70 57 58 59 61 0 0


SB 116 70 57 60 59 61 17 0


NB 136 70 62 64 64 66 2 0


SB 134 70 57 59 59 61 1 0


NB 158 70 57 58 59 61 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15







Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 82 70 57 60 59 61 6 0

Lyoth-Banta Crossover

NB 125 70 62 69 59 69 3 0

Lyoth-Banta Crossover

SB 456 50 64 57 60 71 0 0


I-205 to Old River SB 197 70 57 58 56 67 1 0

Old River to I-5 NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 59 56 57 68 0 0




SB 199 50 59 62 57 63 4 0

Table 4.12-83. Tracy to Lathrop (Alternative TL-3) - Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)




Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 452 50 66 40 67 72 0 0








Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.




SB 372 60 46 52 52 64 1 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15







Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 269 70 46 55 52 64 3 0


SB 339 70 46 54 52 64 2 0


NB 292 50 57 54 56 67 0 0


SB 224 70 57 62 56 62 18 0


NB 237 50 57 64 56 62 81 0


SB 228 50 57 62 56 62 69 0


NB 139 50 57 65 56 62 37 0


SB 224 50 57 62 56 62 21 0


NB 262 50 62 61 59 64 3 0


SB 142 50 57 65 56 62 86 0

Banta NB 142 70 62 68 59 64 12 0

Banta SB 124 50 62 67 59 64 8 0

I-205 to Old River

NB No noise sensitive receivers

I-205 to Old River

SB 197 70 57 58 56 67 1 0

Old River to I-5 NB No noise sensitive receivers

Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 59 56 57 68 0 0


NB 176 60 64 61 64 71 1 0


SB 233 60 64 60 62 71 1 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15




Train Speed (mph)




Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 292 50 67 54 67 72 0 0


NB 309 50 67 54 67 72 0 0


NB 478 50 67 46 67 72 0 0


NB 193 50 63 46 64 70 0 0








Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 357 70 46 53 52 64 1 0


SB 141 60 46 59 52 64 1 0


NB 292 50 57 54 56 67 0 0


SB 224 70 57 62 56 62 18 0


NB 237 50 57 64 56 62 81 0


SB 228 50 57 62 56 62 69 0


NB 139 50 57 65 56 62 37 0


SB 224 50 57 62 56 62 21 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15







Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 262 50 62 61 59 64 3 0


SB 142 50 57 65 56 62 86 0

Banta NB 142 70 62 68 59 64 12 0

Banta SB 124 50 62 67 59 64 8 0

I-205 to Old River


I-205 to Old River

SB 197 70 57 58 56 67 1 0


Old River to I-5 SB 257 70 59 56 57 68 0 0


NB 176 60 64 61 64 71 1 0


SB 233 60 64 60 62 71 1 0




Train Speed (mph)




Term

Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 292 50 67 54 67 72 0 0


NB 309 50 67 54 67 72 0 0


NB 478 50 67 46 67 72 0 0


NB 193 50 63 46 64 70 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-88. Lathrop to Stockton − Residential Noise Impact Assessment







Term

Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.




SB 237 50 59 1 2 4 0 0


NB 152 70 70 0 0 2 0 0




NB 159 50 75 0 0 2 0 0


SB 146 50 73 0 0 2 0 0




SB 87 50 59 3 2 5 26 0


NB 431 50 64 1 2 4 0 0


SB 449 50 59 0 2 5 0 0


NB 437 50 66 1 1 3 0 0


SB 166 50 66 2 1 3 3 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-89. Lathrop to Stockton − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)




Term Incr.

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Haven Peace Inc SB 185 50 73 0 2 5 0 0

Gurdwara Sahib Sikh Temple

SB 184 50 66 0 3 7 0 0

Table 4.12-90. Manteca to Modesto − Residential Noise Impact Assessment







Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


NB 57 50 64 68 60 66 39 0


SB 190 50 64 61 60 71 1 0

West Louise Avenue to North Union Road

NB 56 50 59 68 57 63 24 0

West Louise Avenue to North Union Road

SB 126 50 59 63 57 63 56 0


NB 44 50 73 70 65 72 28 0


SB 95 50 73 68 65 72 15 0




SB 246 50 73 57 65 72 0 0


NB 243 50 69 59 63 69 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15







Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.




NB 206 50 69 60 63 69 0 0






SB 188 50 62 52 59 64 0 0


NB 239 70 72 52 65 76 0 0


SB 351 70 76 57 65 79 0 0


NB 273 70 61 51 58 69 0 0


SB 302 70 61 50 58 69 0 0




SB 481 50 59 42 62 68 0 0


NB 214 50 66 51 62 67 0 0


SB 181 50 66 53 62 67 0 0


NB 294 50 66 49 62 72 0 0




NB 343 50 66 48 61 67 0 0




NB 361 50 64 44 65 70 0 0




May 2017 ICF 00458.15







Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.


SB 199 50 66 55 61 67 0 0


NB 341 50 70 53 65 70 0 0


SB 98 50 66 67 61 67 7 0


NB 139 50 66 63 61 72 0 0


SB 259 50 66 50 61 67 0 0


NB 380 50 70 43 69 74 0 0


SB 416 50 70 55 65 70 0 0


NB 340 50 65 48 60 66 0 0


SB 212 50 66 52 61 72 0 0


NB 413 50 65 47 60 71 0 0


SB 228 50 64 47 65 70 0 0


NB 459 50 57 46 56 67 0 0




NB 139 50 62 61 59 69 1 0






May 2017 ICF 00458.15

Table 4.12-91. Manteca to Modesto − Institutional Noise Impact Assessment



Train Speed (mph)




Term Level

FTA Criteria

Mod. Sev. Mod. Sev.

Valley Charter High School

NB 139 50 63 50 64 70 0 0

Modesto Junior College

SB 228 50 64 47 65 70 0 0

Humphreys College

NB 380 50 70 43 69 74 0 0

San Joaquin Valley College

NB 361 50 64 44 65 70 0 0

Ripon Cemetery NB 283 50 71 45 70 75 0 0

Ripon Christian Schools

SB 412 50 71 43 70 75 0 0

Zion United Reformed Church

SB 481 50 59 42 62 68 0 0

Freewill Baptist Church

NB 163 50 82 58 70 80 0 0

Manteca Gospel Assembly

NB 198 50 82 54 70 80 0 0

Freedom Christian Center

NB 358 50 82 46 70 75 0 0

ACEforward

Figure 4.12-1Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels

(Source: Federal Transit Administration 2006)

ACEforward

Figure 4.12-2Typical Ldn Noise Exposure Levels


ACEforward

Figure 4.12-3Typical Levels of Ground-borne Vibration


!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

San Jose

Fremont

Modesto

Tracy

Stockton

Merced

Lathrop

LivermorePleasanton

Manteca

Union City

Milpitas

Ceres

Ripon

Salida

Atwater

Oakdale

Delhi

Livingston

Escalon

Turlok

MERCED CO

STANISLAUS CO

SAN JOAQUIN CO

SANTA CLARA CO

ALAMEDA CO

CONTRA COSTA CO

Proposed ACEforward Improvements

Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 155 10

Miles

Figure 4.12-4

ACEforward Corridor - Noise and Vibration Study Area

ACEforward


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 82 4 6

Miles

Figure 4.12-5

Niles and Oakland Subdivisions - Noise

ACEforward

Niles Subdivsion

Oakland Subdivision

Coast Subdivsion

Oakland Subdivision

Niles Subdivision

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

San Jose

Fremont

Modesto

Tracy

Stockton

Merced

Lathrop

LivermorePleasanton

Manteca

Union City

Milpitas

Ceres

Ripon

Salida

Atwater

Oakdale

Delhi

Livingston

Escalon

Turlok

MERCED CO

STANISLAUS CO

SAN JOAQUIN CO

SANTA CLARA CO

ALAMEDA CO

CONTRA COSTA CO

ST-8ST-9

ST-7

ST-2

ST-1

ST-5

ST-3

ST-6

ST-4

LT-3

LT-7

LT-6

LT-1

LT-4

LT-5

LT-2

LT-9LT-8

ST-11

ST-12

ST-10

LT-15

LT-17

LT-12

LT-13

LT-10

LT-16

LT-14

LT-18

LT-11

Noise Measurement Locations


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 155 10

Miles

Figure 4.12-6

ACEforward Corridor - Noise Measurement Sites

ACEforward

ST-1NS

LT-4NS

LT-3NS

LT-2NSLT-1NS

LT-9N

LT-8N

LT-7N

LT-6N

LT-5N

ST-1NLT-4N

LT-3N

LT-2N

LT-1N

LT-17N

LT-16NLT-15NLT-14N

LT-13N

LT-12N

LT-11N

LT-10N

Noise Measurement Sites

Proposed ACEforward

Improvements

Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 82 4 6

Miles

Figure 4.12-7

Niles and Oakland Subdivisions - Noise Measurement Sites

ACEforward

Niles Subdivsion

Oakland Subdivision

Coast Subdivsion

Oakland Subdivision

Niles Subdivision

ACEforward

Figure 4.12-8FTA Noise Impact Criteria


ACEforward

Figure 4.12-9FTA Cumulative Noise Impact Criteria


!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

San Jose

Fremont

Modesto

Tracy

Stockton

Merced

Lathrop

LivermorePleasanton

Manteca

Union City

Milpitas

Ceres

Ripon

Salida

Atwater

Oakdale

Delhi

Livingston

Escalon

Turlok

MERCED CO

STANISLAUS CO

SAN JOAQUIN CO

SANTA CLARA CO

ALAMEDA CO

CONTRA COSTA CO

CO

Impact Type

Moderate

Proposed ACEforwardImprovements

Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 155 10

Miles

See Figures 4.12-13, 4.12-15, and 4.12-16

See Figures 4.12-17through 4.12-22

See Figure 4.12-14

Figure 4.12-10

Near-term Moderate Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

San Jose

Fremont

Modesto

Tracy

Stockton

Merced

Lathrop

LivermorePleasanton

Manteca

Union City

Milpitas

Ceres

Ripon

Salida

Atwater

Oakdale

Delhi

Livingston

Escalon

Turlok

MERCED CO

STANISLAUS CO

SAN JOAQUIN CO

SANTA CLARA CO

ALAMEDA CO

CONTRA COSTA CO

CO

Impact Type

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 155 10

Miles

See Figures 4.12-13,4.12-15, and 4.12-16


See Figure 4.12-14

Figure 4.12-11

Near-term Severe Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

Noise Impacts

Moderate

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 82 4 6

Miles

Figure 4.12-12

Niles Subdivision - Near-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

Niles Subdivsion

Oakland Subdivision

Coast Subdivsion

Oakland Subdivision

Niles Subdivision

Impact Type

Moderate

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line±0 10.5

Miles

Figure 4.12-13

Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1b, and CNS-1c Near-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

Noise Impacts

Moderate

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 82 4 6

Miles

Figure 4.12-14

Alternative CNS-1c Near-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

Niles Subdivsion

Oakland Subdivision

Coast Subdivsion

Oakland Subdivision

Niles Subdivision

For impacts along the Oakland Subdivision, east of Niles Junction,

see Figure 4.12-13

Impact Type

Moderate


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line±0 10.5

Miles

Figure 4.12-15

Alternative CNS-2a Near-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

Impact Type

Moderate

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line±0 10.5

Miles

Figure 4.12-16

Alternative CNS-2b Near-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Mante

Tracy

Lathrop

Impact Type

Moderate


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line±0 62 4

Miles

Figure 4.12-17

Alternative TL-1 Near-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

TL-1

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Mante

Tracy

Lathrop

Impact Type

Moderate


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line±0 62 4

Miles

Figure 4.12-18

Alternative TL-2a Near-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

TL-2a

TL-2a

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Mante

Tracy

Lathrop

Impact Type

Moderate


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line±0 62 4

Miles

Figure 4.12-19

Alternative TL-2b Near-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

TL-2b

TL-2b

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Mante

Tracy

Lathrop

ACEforward DRAFT EIS/EIR

Impact Type

Moderate

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line±0 62 4

Miles

Figure 4.12-20

Alternative TL-3 Near-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

TL-3

TL-3

TL-3

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Mante

Tracy

Lathrop


Impact Type

Moderate


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line±0 62 4

Miles

Figure 4.12-21

Alternative TL-4a Near-Term-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

TL-4a

TL-4a

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Mante

Tracy

Lathrop

Impact Type

Moderate


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line±0 62 4

Miles

Figure 4.12-22

Alternative TL-4b Near-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

TL-4b

TL-4b

TL-4b

Vibration Impacts


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line±0 10.5

Miles

Figure 4.12-23

Alternative CNS-2a Near-term Vibration Impact Locations

ACEforward

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

San Jose

Fremont

Modesto

Tracy

Stockton

Merced

Lathrop

LivermorePleasanton

Manteca

Union City

Milpitas

Ceres

Ripon

Salida

Atwater

Oakdale

Delhi

Livingston

Escalon

Turlok

MERCED CO

STANISLAUS CO

SAN JOAQUIN CO

SANTA CLARA CO

ALAMEDA CO

CONTRA COSTA CO

O CO

Impact Type

Moderate


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 155 10

Miles


See Figures 4.12-27,4.12-29, and 4.12-30

See Figure 4.12-28

Figure 4.12-24

Longer-term Moderate Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

San Jose

Fremont

Modesto

Tracy

Stockton

Merced

Lathrop

LivermorePleasanton

Manteca

Union City

Milpitas

Ceres

Ripon

Salida

Atwater

Oakdale

Delhi

Livingston

Escalon

Turlok

MERCED CO

STANISLAUS CO

SAN JOAQUIN CO

SANTA CLARA CO

ALAMEDA CO

CONTRA COSTA CO

O CO

Impact Type

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 155 10

Miles


See Figures 4.12-27,4.12-29, and 4.12-30

See Figure 4.12-28

Figure 4.12-25

Longer-term Severe Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

Noise Impacts

Moderate

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 82 4 6

Miles

Figure 4.12-26

Niles Subdivision - Longer-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

Niles Subdivsion

Oakland Subdivision

Coast Subdivsion

Oakland Subdivision

Niles Subdivision

Impact Type

Moderate

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 10.5

Miles

Figure 4.12-27

Longer-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

Noise Impacts

Moderate

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 82 4 6

Miles

Niles Subdivsion

Oakland Subdivision

Coast Subdivsion

Oakland Subdivision

Niles Subdivision

Figure 4.12-28


ACEforward

For impacts along the Oakland Subdivision, east of Niles Junction,

see Figure 4.12-27

Impact Type

Moderate

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 10.5

Miles

Figure 4.12-29


ACEforward

Impact Type

Moderate

Severe

Proposed ACEforwardImprovement

Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 10.5

Miles

Figure 4.12-30


ACEforward

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Mante

Tracy

Lathrop

Impact Type

Moderate

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 62 4

Miles

Figure 4.12-31

Alternative TL-1 Longer-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

TL-1

TL-1

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Mante

Tracy

Lathrop

Impact Type

Moderate


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 62 4

Miles

Figure 4.12-32

Alternative TL-2a Longer-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

TL-2a

TL-2a

TL-2a

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Mante

Tracy

Lathrop


Impact Type

Moderate


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 62 4

Miles

Figure 4.12-33

Alternative TL-2b Longer-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

TL-2b

TL-2b

TL-2b

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Mante

Tracy

Lathrop

Impact Type

Moderate

Severe


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 62 4

Miles

Figure 4.12-34


ACEforward

TL-3

TL-3

TL-3

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Impact Type

Moderate


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 62 4

Miles

Mante

Tracy

Lathrop

Figure 4.12-35

Alternative TL-4a Longer-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

TL-4a

TL-4a

TL-4a

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Mante

Tracy

Lathrop

Impact Type

Moderate


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line

±0 62 4

Miles

Figure 4.12-36

Alternative TL-4b Longer-term Noise Impact Locations

ACEforward

TL-4b

TL-4b

TL-4b

Vibration Impacts


Stations

!( Existing

!( Proposed

Other Features

Existing Rail

Major Roadway

County Line±0 10.5

Miles

Figure 4.12-37

Alternative CNS-2a Longer-term Vibration Impact Locations

ACEforward

Documents

4.12 Noise and Vibration - Altamont Corridor Express · Similar to FRA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ... operation noise and vibration during the design process. The FTA